firmly established rule in Kansas

2006The parental preference doctrine “is a firmly established rule in this state that a parent who is able to care for his or her children and desires to do so, and who has not been found to be an unfit person to have their custody in an action or proceeding where that question is in issue, is entitled to the custody of his or her children as against grandparents or others who have no permanent or legal right to the children’s custody, even though at the time the natural parent seeks their custody such grandparents or others are giving the children proper and suitable care and have acquired an att

1995In re Guardianship of Williams, 254 Kan. 814 , Syl. ¶¶ 2, 3, 869 P.2d 661 (1994), succinctly explains that doctrine: “It is a firmly established rule in this state that a parent who is able to care for his or her children and desires to do so, and who has not been found to be an unfit person to have their custody in an action or proceeding where that question is in issue, is entitled to the custody of his or her children as against grandparents or others who have no permanent or legal right to the children’s custody, even though at the time the natural parent seeks their custody such grandpare

1979(State v. Donahue, 197 Kan. 317 , 416 P.2d 287 ; State v. Eye, 161 Kan. 69 , 166 P.2d 572 ; State v. Thomas, 157 Kan. 526 , 142 P.2d 692 .) He contends, however, that the instruction creating a presumption of intent is in conflict with the mandate of K.S.A. 21-3201, which places upon the prosecution the burden of proving an act to be intentional.

1979(State v. Donahue, 197 Kan. 317 , 416 P.2d 287 ; State v. Eye, 161 Kan. 69 , 166 P.2d 572 ; State v. Thomas, 157 Kan. 526 , 142 P.2d 692 .) He contends, however, that the instruction creating a presumption of intent is in conflict with the mandate of K.S.A. 21-3201, which places upon the prosecution the burden of proving an act to be intentional.

1979(State v. Donahue, 197 Kan. 317 , 416 P.2d 287 ; State v. Eye, 161 Kan. 69 , 166 P.2d 572 ; State v. Thomas, 157 Kan. 526 , 142 P.2d 692 .) He contends, however, that the instruction creating a presumption of intent is in conflict with the mandate of K.S.A. 21-3201, which places upon the prosecution the burden of proving an act to be intentional.

1979(State v. Donahue, 197 Kan. 317 , 416 P.2d 287 ; State v. Eye, 161 Kan. 69 , 166 P.2d 572 ; State v. Thomas, 157 Kan. 526 , 142 P.2d 692 .) He contends, however, that the instruction creating a presumption of intent is in conflict with the mandate of K.S.A. 21-3201, which places upon the prosecution the burden of proving an act to be intentional.

1979(State v. Donahue, 197 Kan. 317 , 416 P.2d 287 ; State v. Eye, 161 Kan. 69 , 166 P.2d 572 ; State v. Thomas, 157 Kan. 526 , 142 P.2d 692 .) He contends, however, that the instruction creating a presumption of intent is in conflict with the mandate of K.S.A. 21-3201, which places upon the prosecution the burden of proving an act to be intentional.

1979(State v. Donahue, 197 Kan. 317 , 416 P.2d 287 ; State v. Eye, 161 Kan. 69 , 166 P.2d 572 ; State v. Thomas, 157 Kan. 526 , 142 P.2d 692 .) He contends, however, that the instruction creating a presumption of intent is in conflict with the mandate of K.S.A. 21-3201, which places upon the prosecution the burden of proving an act to be intentional.

1962We cite but a few of our many decisions in support of the rule: In re King, 66 Kan. 695 , 72 Pac. 263 , 97 Am.

1962We cite but a few of our many decisions in support of the rule: In re King, 66 Kan. 695 , 72 Pac. 263 , 97 Am.

2004In construing a will the court must put itself as nearly as possible in the situation of the testator when he made the will and from a consideration of the situation and from the language used in every part of the will, determine as best it can the purpose of the testator and the intentions he endeavored to convey by the language used. [Citation omitted.]" In re Estate of Tompkins, 195 Kan. at 471 .

1988Diefenbach v. State Highway Commission, 195 Kan. 445, 447 , 407 P.2d 228 (1965).

1988Diefenbach v. State Highway Commission, 195 Kan. 445, 447 , 407 P.2d 228 (1965).

1977(See Van Gilder v. Barnes, 288 Mich. 492 , 285 N. W. 35 ; Quilici v. Thompson, 61 Nev. 118 , 119 P. 2d 710 ; and other cases collected in note 281, 11 U. S. C.

1977(See Van Gilder v. Barnes, 288 Mich. 492 , 285 N. W. 35 ; Quilici v. Thompson, 61 Nev. 118 , 119 P. 2d 710 ; and other cases collected in note 281, 11 U. S. C.

1977(See Van Gilder v. Barnes, 288 Mich. 492 , 285 N. W. 35 ; Quilici v. Thompson, 61 Nev. 118 , 119 P. 2d 710 ; and other cases collected in note 281, 11 U. S. C.

1977(See Van Gilder v. Barnes, 288 Mich. 492 , 285 N. W. 35 ; Quilici v. Thompson, 61 Nev. 118 , 119 P. 2d 710 ; and other cases collected in note 281, 11 U. S. C.

1976(State v. McVeigh, 213 Kan. 432 , 516 P. 2d 918 ; State v. Milow, 199 Kan. 576 , 433 P. 2d 538 .) The voluntariness of a confession is a question in the first instance for the determination of the trial court, and if there is substantial competent evidence to support the trial court’s findings it will not be disturbed on appeal.

1976(State v. McVeigh, 213 Kan. 432 , 516 P. 2d 918 ; State v. Milow, 199 Kan. 576 , 433 P. 2d 538 .) The voluntariness of a confession is a question in the first instance for the determination of the trial court, and if there is substantial competent evidence to support the trial court’s findings it will not be disturbed on appeal.

1976(State v. McVeigh, 213 Kan. 432 , 516 P. 2d 918 ; State v. Milow, 199 Kan. 576 , 433 P. 2d 538 .) The voluntariness of a confession is a question in the first instance for the determination of the trial court, and if there is substantial competent evidence to support the trial court’s findings it will not be disturbed on appeal.

1976(State v. McVeigh, 213 Kan. 432 , 516 P. 2d 918 ; State v. Milow, 199 Kan. 576 , 433 P. 2d 538 .) The voluntariness of a confession is a question in the first instance for the determination of the trial court, and if there is substantial competent evidence to support the trial court’s findings it will not be disturbed on appeal.

1972As pointed out in the court's opinion, it is a firmly established principle in this jurisdiction that the constitutionality of a statute will not be determined in any case unless such determination is absolutely necessary or imperatively required. ( Keplinger v. Kansas City, 122 Kan. 158 , 251 Pac. 413 ; and Clewell v. School District, 115 Kan. 176 , 222 Pac. 74 .) The restraint assiduously exercised heretofore by this court in this regard is demonstrated in treatment given the subject in the case of National Van *447 Lines v. Jones, 192 Kan. 338 , 388 P.2d 660 .

1972As pointed out in the court's opinion, it is a firmly established principle in this jurisdiction that the constitutionality of a statute will not be determined in any case unless such determination is absolutely necessary or imperatively required. ( Keplinger v. Kansas City, 122 Kan. 158 , 251 Pac. 413 ; and Clewell v. School District, 115 Kan. 176 , 222 Pac. 74 .) The restraint assiduously exercised heretofore by this court in this regard is demonstrated in treatment given the subject in the case of National Van *447 Lines v. Jones, 192 Kan. 338 , 388 P.2d 660 .

1972As pointed out in the court's opinion, it is a firmly established principle in this jurisdiction that the constitutionality of a statute will not be determined in any case unless such determination is absolutely necessary or imperatively required. ( Keplinger v. Kansas City, 122 Kan. 158 , 251 Pac. 413 ; and Clewell v. School District, 115 Kan. 176 , 222 Pac. 74 .) The restraint assiduously exercised heretofore by this court in this regard is demonstrated in treatment given the subject in the case of National Van *447 Lines v. Jones, 192 Kan. 338 , 388 P.2d 660 .

1972As pointed out in the court's opinion, it is a firmly established principle in this jurisdiction that the constitutionality of a statute will not be determined in any case unless such determination is absolutely necessary or imperatively required. ( Keplinger v. Kansas City, 122 Kan. 158 , 251 Pac. 413 ; and Clewell v. School District, 115 Kan. 176 , 222 Pac. 74 .) The restraint assiduously exercised heretofore by this court in this regard is demonstrated in treatment given the subject in the case of National Van *447 Lines v. Jones, 192 Kan. 338 , 388 P.2d 660 .

1972As pointed out in the court's opinion, it is a firmly established principle in this jurisdiction that the constitutionality of a statute will not be determined in any case unless such determination is absolutely necessary or imperatively required. ( Keplinger v. Kansas City, 122 Kan. 158 , 251 Pac. 413 ; and Clewell v. School District, 115 Kan. 176 , 222 Pac. 74 .) The restraint assiduously exercised heretofore by this court in this regard is demonstrated in treatment given the subject in the case of National Van *447 Lines v. Jones, 192 Kan. 338 , 388 P.2d 660 .

1972As pointed out in the court's opinion, it is a firmly established principle in this jurisdiction that the constitutionality of a statute will not be determined in any case unless such determination is absolutely necessary or imperatively required. ( Keplinger v. Kansas City, 122 Kan. 158 , 251 Pac. 413 ; and Clewell v. School District, 115 Kan. 176 , 222 Pac. 74 .) The restraint assiduously exercised heretofore by this court in this regard is demonstrated in treatment given the subject in the case of National Van *447 Lines v. Jones, 192 Kan. 338 , 388 P.2d 660 .

1968(Jarboe v. Pine, 189 Kan. 44 , 366 P. 2d 783 ; Bottenberg Implement Co. v. Sheffield, 171 Kan. 67 , 229 P. 2d 1004 ; Orr v. Hensy, 158 Kan. 303 , 147 P. 2d 749 ; PIK 8.03.) Appellants argue that William was not guilty of negligence as a matter of law within the purview of K.

1968(Jarboe v. Pine, 189 Kan. 44 , 366 P. 2d 783 ; Bottenberg Implement Co. v. Sheffield, 171 Kan. 67 , 229 P. 2d 1004 ; Orr v. Hensy, 158 Kan. 303 , 147 P. 2d 749 ; PIK 8.03.) Appellants argue that William was not guilty of negligence as a matter of law within the purview of K.

1968(Jarboe v. Pine, 189 Kan. 44 , 366 P. 2d 783 ; Bottenberg Implement Co. v. Sheffield, 171 Kan. 67 , 229 P. 2d 1004 ; Orr v. Hensy, 158 Kan. 303 , 147 P. 2d 749 ; PIK 8.03.) Appellants argue that William was not guilty of negligence as a matter of law within the purview of K.

1968(Jarboe v. Pine, 189 Kan. 44 , 366 P. 2d 783 ; Bottenberg Implement Co. v. Sheffield, 171 Kan. 67 , 229 P. 2d 1004 ; Orr v. Hensy, 158 Kan. 303 , 147 P. 2d 749 ; PIK 8.03.) Appellants argue that William was not guilty of negligence as a matter of law within the purview of K.

1968(Jarboe v. Pine, 189 Kan. 44 , 366 P. 2d 783 ; Bottenberg Implement Co. v. Sheffield, 171 Kan. 67 , 229 P. 2d 1004 ; Orr v. Hensy, 158 Kan. 303 , 147 P. 2d 749 ; PIK 8.03.) Appellants argue that William was not guilty of negligence as a matter of law within the purview of K.

1968(Jarboe v. Pine, 189 Kan. 44 , 366 P. 2d 783 ; Bottenberg Implement Co. v. Sheffield, 171 Kan. 67 , 229 P. 2d 1004 ; Orr v. Hensy, 158 Kan. 303 , 147 P. 2d 749 ; PIK 8.03.) Appellants argue that William was not guilty of negligence as a matter of law within the purview of K.

1967Some of our more recent cases in which the rule was applied are Callan v. Biermann, 194 Kan. 219 , 398 P. 2d 355 ; Hendrixon v. Schemahorn, 193 Kan. 640 , 396 P. 2d 352 ; and Cain v. Grosshans & Petersen, Inc., 192 Kan. 474 , 389 P. 2d 839 .

1967Some of our more recent cases in which the rule was applied are Callan v. Biermann, 194 Kan. 219 , 398 P. 2d 355 ; Hendrixon v. Schemahorn, 193 Kan. 640 , 396 P. 2d 352 ; and Cain v. Grosshans & Petersen, Inc., 192 Kan. 474 , 389 P. 2d 839 .

1967Some of our more recent cases in which the rule was applied are Callan v. Biermann, 194 Kan. 219 , 398 P. 2d 355 ; Hendrixon v. Schemahorn, 193 Kan. 640 , 396 P. 2d 352 ; and Cain v. Grosshans & Petersen, Inc., 192 Kan. 474 , 389 P. 2d 839 .

1967Some of our more recent cases in which the rule was applied are Callan v. Biermann, 194 Kan. 219 , 398 P. 2d 355 ; Hendrixon v. Schemahorn, 193 Kan. 640 , 396 P. 2d 352 ; and Cain v. Grosshans & Petersen, Inc., 192 Kan. 474 , 389 P. 2d 839 .

1967Some of our more recent cases in which the rule was applied are Callan v. Biermann, 194 Kan. 219 , 398 P. 2d 355 ; Hendrixon v. Schemahorn, 193 Kan. 640 , 396 P. 2d 352 ; and Cain v. Grosshans & Petersen, Inc., 192 Kan. 474 , 389 P. 2d 839 .

1967Some of our more recent cases in which the rule was applied are Callan v. Biermann, 194 Kan. 219 , 398 P. 2d 355 ; Hendrixon v. Schemahorn, 193 Kan. 640 , 396 P. 2d 352 ; and Cain v. Grosshans & Petersen, Inc., 192 Kan. 474 , 389 P. 2d 839 .

1966For a few of our more recent cases, see Cooper v. State, 196 Kan. 421 , 411 P. 2d 652 ; Fields v. State, 195 Kan. 718 , 408 P. 2d 674 ; Shores v. State, 195 Kan. 705 , 408 P. 2d 608 ; Blacksmith v. State, 195 Kan. 523 , 407 P. 2d 486 ; Zumalt v. State, 195 Kan. 520 , 407 P. 2d 234 ; Chance v. State, 195 Kan. 430 , 407 P. 2d 236 , cert. den. 382 U. S. 1019 , 15 L.

1966For a few of our more recent cases, see Cooper v. State, 196 Kan. 421 , 411 P. 2d 652 ; Fields v. State, 195 Kan. 718 , 408 P. 2d 674 ; Shores v. State, 195 Kan. 705 , 408 P. 2d 608 ; Blacksmith v. State, 195 Kan. 523 , 407 P. 2d 486 ; Zumalt v. State, 195 Kan. 520 , 407 P. 2d 234 ; Chance v. State, 195 Kan. 430 , 407 P. 2d 236 , cert. den. 382 U. S. 1019 , 15 L.

1966For a few of our more recent cases, see Cooper v. State, 196 Kan. 421 , 411 P. 2d 652 ; Fields v. State, 195 Kan. 718 , 408 P. 2d 674 ; Shores v. State, 195 Kan. 705 , 408 P. 2d 608 ; Blacksmith v. State, 195 Kan. 523 , 407 P. 2d 486 ; Zumalt v. State, 195 Kan. 520 , 407 P. 2d 234 ; Chance v. State, 195 Kan. 430 , 407 P. 2d 236 , cert. den. 382 U. S. 1019 , 15 L.

1966For a few of our more recent cases, see Cooper v. State, 196 Kan. 421 , 411 P. 2d 652 ; Fields v. State, 195 Kan. 718 , 408 P. 2d 674 ; Shores v. State, 195 Kan. 705 , 408 P. 2d 608 ; Blacksmith v. State, 195 Kan. 523 , 407 P. 2d 486 ; Zumalt v. State, 195 Kan. 520 , 407 P. 2d 234 ; Chance v. State, 195 Kan. 430 , 407 P. 2d 236 , cert. den. 382 U. S. 1019 , 15 L.

1966For a few of our more recent cases, see Cooper v. State, 196 Kan. 421 , 411 P. 2d 652 ; Fields v. State, 195 Kan. 718 , 408 P. 2d 674 ; Shores v. State, 195 Kan. 705 , 408 P. 2d 608 ; Blacksmith v. State, 195 Kan. 523 , 407 P. 2d 486 ; Zumalt v. State, 195 Kan. 520 , 407 P. 2d 234 ; Chance v. State, 195 Kan. 430 , 407 P. 2d 236 , cert. den. 382 U. S. 1019 , 15 L.

1966For a few of our more recent cases, see Cooper v. State, 196 Kan. 421 , 411 P. 2d 652 ; Fields v. State, 195 Kan. 718 , 408 P. 2d 674 ; Shores v. State, 195 Kan. 705 , 408 P. 2d 608 ; Blacksmith v. State, 195 Kan. 523 , 407 P. 2d 486 ; Zumalt v. State, 195 Kan. 520 , 407 P. 2d 234 ; Chance v. State, 195 Kan. 430 , 407 P. 2d 236 , cert. den. 382 U. S. 1019 , 15 L.

1966For a few of our more recent cases, see Cooper v. State, 196 Kan. 421 , 411 P. 2d 652 ; Fields v. State, 195 Kan. 718 , 408 P. 2d 674 ; Shores v. State, 195 Kan. 705 , 408 P. 2d 608 ; Blacksmith v. State, 195 Kan. 523 , 407 P. 2d 486 ; Zumalt v. State, 195 Kan. 520 , 407 P. 2d 234 ; Chance v. State, 195 Kan. 430 , 407 P. 2d 236 , cert. den. 382 U. S. 1019 , 15 L.

1966For a few of our more recent cases, see Cooper v. State, 196 Kan. 421 , 411 P. 2d 652 ; Fields v. State, 195 Kan. 718 , 408 P. 2d 674 ; Shores v. State, 195 Kan. 705 , 408 P. 2d 608 ; Blacksmith v. State, 195 Kan. 523 , 407 P. 2d 486 ; Zumalt v. State, 195 Kan. 520 , 407 P. 2d 234 ; Chance v. State, 195 Kan. 430 , 407 P. 2d 236 , cert. den. 382 U. S. 1019 , 15 L.

1966For a few of our more recent cases, see Cooper v. State, 196 Kan. 421 , 411 P. 2d 652 ; Fields v. State, 195 Kan. 718 , 408 P. 2d 674 ; Shores v. State, 195 Kan. 705 , 408 P. 2d 608 ; Blacksmith v. State, 195 Kan. 523 , 407 P. 2d 486 ; Zumalt v. State, 195 Kan. 520 , 407 P. 2d 234 ; Chance v. State, 195 Kan. 430 , 407 P. 2d 236 , cert. den. 382 U. S. 1019 , 15 L.

1966For a few of our more recent cases, see Cooper v. State, 196 Kan. 421 , 411 P. 2d 652 ; Fields v. State, 195 Kan. 718 , 408 P. 2d 674 ; Shores v. State, 195 Kan. 705 , 408 P. 2d 608 ; Blacksmith v. State, 195 Kan. 523 , 407 P. 2d 486 ; Zumalt v. State, 195 Kan. 520 , 407 P. 2d 234 ; Chance v. State, 195 Kan. 430 , 407 P. 2d 236 , cert. den. 382 U. S. 1019 , 15 L.

1966For a few of our more recent cases, see Cooper v. State, 196 Kan. 421 , 411 P. 2d 652 ; Fields v. State, 195 Kan. 718 , 408 P. 2d 674 ; Shores v. State, 195 Kan. 705 , 408 P. 2d 608 ; Blacksmith v. State, 195 Kan. 523 , 407 P. 2d 486 ; Zumalt v. State, 195 Kan. 520 , 407 P. 2d 234 ; Chance v. State, 195 Kan. 430 , 407 P. 2d 236 , cert. den. 382 U. S. 1019 , 15 L.

1966For a few of our more recent cases, see Cooper v. State, 196 Kan. 421 , 411 P. 2d 652 ; Fields v. State, 195 Kan. 718 , 408 P. 2d 674 ; Shores v. State, 195 Kan. 705 , 408 P. 2d 608 ; Blacksmith v. State, 195 Kan. 523 , 407 P. 2d 486 ; Zumalt v. State, 195 Kan. 520 , 407 P. 2d 234 ; Chance v. State, 195 Kan. 430 , 407 P. 2d 236 , cert. den. 382 U. S. 1019 , 15 L.

1966For a few of our more recent cases, see Cooper v. State, 196 Kan. 421 , 411 P. 2d 652 ; Fields v. State, 195 Kan. 718 , 408 P. 2d 674 ; Shores v. State, 195 Kan. 705 , 408 P. 2d 608 ; Blacksmith v. State, 195 Kan. 523 , 407 P. 2d 486 ; Zumalt v. State, 195 Kan. 520 , 407 P. 2d 234 ; Chance v. State, 195 Kan. 430 , 407 P. 2d 236 , cert. den. 382 U. S. 1019 , 15 L.

1964We cite but a few of the many decisions in which the rule has been applied: State v. Shehi, 125 Kan. 110 , syl. 2, 263 Pac. 787 ; State v. Pore, 143 Kan. 344 , syl. (4), 55 P. 2d 348 ; State v. Owen, 161 Kan. 361 , 168 P. 2d 917 ; State v. Turner, 183 Kan. 496 , syl. 1, 328 P. 2d 733 , appeal dismissed for want of a substantial federal question, 359 U. S. 206 , 3 L. ed. 2d 759, 79 S. Ct. 739 ; State v. Hamilton, above; State v. Lewis, 187 Kan. 221 , syl. 1, 356 P. 2d 845 ; State v. Bednark, 187 Kan. 236, 237 , 356 P. 2d 848 ; State v. Jones, 187 Kan. 318 , syl. 1, 356 P. 2d 843 ; State v. Arms

1964We cite but a few of the many decisions in which the rule has been applied: State v. Shehi, 125 Kan. 110 , syl. 2, 263 Pac. 787 ; State v. Pore, 143 Kan. 344 , syl. (4), 55 P. 2d 348 ; State v. Owen, 161 Kan. 361 , 168 P. 2d 917 ; State v. Turner, 183 Kan. 496 , syl. 1, 328 P. 2d 733 , appeal dismissed for want of a substantial federal question, 359 U. S. 206 , 3 L. ed. 2d 759, 79 S. Ct. 739 ; State v. Hamilton, above; State v. Lewis, 187 Kan. 221 , syl. 1, 356 P. 2d 845 ; State v. Bednark, 187 Kan. 236, 237 , 356 P. 2d 848 ; State v. Jones, 187 Kan. 318 , syl. 1, 356 P. 2d 843 ; State v. Arms

1964We cite but a few of the many decisions in which the rule has been applied: State v. Shehi, 125 Kan. 110 , syl. 2, 263 Pac. 787 ; State v. Pore, 143 Kan. 344 , syl. (4), 55 P. 2d 348 ; State v. Owen, 161 Kan. 361 , 168 P. 2d 917 ; State v. Turner, 183 Kan. 496 , syl. 1, 328 P. 2d 733 , appeal dismissed for want of a substantial federal question, 359 U. S. 206 , 3 L. ed. 2d 759, 79 S. Ct. 739 ; State v. Hamilton, above; State v. Lewis, 187 Kan. 221 , syl. 1, 356 P. 2d 845 ; State v. Bednark, 187 Kan. 236, 237 , 356 P. 2d 848 ; State v. Jones, 187 Kan. 318 , syl. 1, 356 P. 2d 843 ; State v. Arms

1964We cite but a few of the many decisions in which the rule has been applied: State v. Shehi, 125 Kan. 110 , syl. 2, 263 Pac. 787 ; State v. Pore, 143 Kan. 344 , syl. (4), 55 P. 2d 348 ; State v. Owen, 161 Kan. 361 , 168 P. 2d 917 ; State v. Turner, 183 Kan. 496 , syl. 1, 328 P. 2d 733 , appeal dismissed for want of a substantial federal question, 359 U. S. 206 , 3 L. ed. 2d 759, 79 S. Ct. 739 ; State v. Hamilton, above; State v. Lewis, 187 Kan. 221 , syl. 1, 356 P. 2d 845 ; State v. Bednark, 187 Kan. 236, 237 , 356 P. 2d 848 ; State v. Jones, 187 Kan. 318 , syl. 1, 356 P. 2d 843 ; State v. Arms