legal sufficiency claim in Kansas

2006App. 2d 472 , Syl ¶¶ 1-3, 620 P.2d 837 (1980), is as follows: “When a motion to dismiss under K.S.A. 60-212(b)(6) raises an issue concerning the legal sufficiency of a claim, the question must be decided from the well-pleaded facts of plaintiffs petition.

2001App. 2d 472, 620 P.2d 837 (1980): “ ‘ “When a motion to dismiss under K.S.A. 60-212(b)(6) raises an issue concerning the legal sufficiency of a claim, the question must be decided from the well-pleaded facts of plaintiffs petition.

2009“When a motion to dismiss under K.S.A. 60-212(b)(6) raises an issues concerning the legal sufficiency of a claim, the question must be decided from the well-pleaded facts of plaintiff s petition.” Halley v. Barnabe, 271 Kan. 652, 656 , 24 P.3d 140 (2001).

2009“When a motion to dismiss under K.S.A. 60-212(b)(6) raises an issues concerning the legal sufficiency of a claim, the question must be decided from the well-pleaded facts of plaintiff s petition.” Halley v. Barnabe, 271 Kan. 652, 656 , 24 P.3d 140 (2001).

2007Davidson v. Denning, 259 Kan. 659 , Syl. ¶ 1, 914 P.2d 936 (1996).

1997App. 2d 225 , Syl. ¶ 1, 897 P.2d 1043 (1995), rev. denied 259 Kan. 659 (1996), we held: “When a motion to dismiss under K.S.A. 60-212(b)(6) raises an issue concerning the legal sufficiency of a claim and the trial court receives and considers matters outside the pleadings, the motion shall be treated as one for summary judgment and disposed of as provided under K.S.A. 60-256.” The trial court made factual findings based, at least in part, on the affidavit Decker filed with his motion for summary judgment.

2024K.S.A. 60-212(b)(6)." Miller v. Sloan, Listrom, Eisenbarth, Sloan and Glassman, 267 Kan. 245, 250 , 978 P.2d 922 (1999). 9 "Summary judgment is appropriate when the pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, admissions on file, and supporting affidavits show that no genuine issue exists as to any material fact and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.

2024K.S.A. 60-212(b)(6)." Miller v. Sloan, Listrom, Eisenbarth, Sloan and Glassman, 267 Kan. 245, 250 , 978 P.2d 922 (1999). 9 "Summary judgment is appropriate when the pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, admissions on file, and supporting affidavits show that no genuine issue exists as to any material fact and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.

1999Decker v. Kansas Dept. of SRS, 24 Kan.

1997App. 2d 225 , Syl. ¶ 1, 897 P.2d 1043 (1995), rev. denied 259 Kan. 659 (1996), we held: “When a motion to dismiss under K.S.A. 60-212(b)(6) raises an issue concerning the legal sufficiency of a claim and the trial court receives and considers matters outside the pleadings, the motion shall be treated as one for summary judgment and disposed of as provided under K.S.A. 60-256.” The trial court made factual findings based, at least in part, on the affidavit Decker filed with his motion for summary judgment.

1980Illustrative of that scope of review is Weil & Associates v. Urban Renewal Agency, 206 Kan. 405, 413-14 , 479 P.2d 875 (1971), wherein the Supreme Court said: “In Robertson v. McCune, 205 Kan. 696 , 472 P.2d 215 , we considered the scope of a motion to dismiss and said: “‘When a motion to dismiss under K.S.A. 60-212(b)(6) . . . raises an issue concerning the legal sufficiency of a claim, the question must be decided from the well-pleaded facts of plaintiff’s petition.

1980Illustrative of that scope of review is Weil & Associates v. Urban Renewal Agency, 206 Kan. 405, 413-14 , 479 P.2d 875 (1971), wherein the Supreme Court said: “In Robertson v. McCune, 205 Kan. 696 , 472 P.2d 215 , we considered the scope of a motion to dismiss and said: “‘When a motion to dismiss under K.S.A. 60-212(b)(6) . . . raises an issue concerning the legal sufficiency of a claim, the question must be decided from the well-pleaded facts of plaintiff’s petition.

1980Illustrative of that scope of review is Weil & Associates v. Urban Renewal Agency, 206 Kan. 405, 413-14 , 479 P.2d 875 (1971), wherein the Supreme Court said: “In Robertson v. McCune, 205 Kan. 696 , 472 P.2d 215 , we considered the scope of a motion to dismiss and said: “‘When a motion to dismiss under K.S.A. 60-212(b)(6) . . . raises an issue concerning the legal sufficiency of a claim, the question must be decided from the well-pleaded facts of plaintiff’s petition.

1980Illustrative of that scope of review is Weil & Associates v. Urban Renewal Agency, 206 Kan. 405, 413-14 , 479 P.2d 875 (1971), wherein the Supreme Court said: “In Robertson v. McCune, 205 Kan. 696 , 472 P.2d 215 , we considered the scope of a motion to dismiss and said: “‘When a motion to dismiss under K.S.A. 60-212(b)(6) . . . raises an issue concerning the legal sufficiency of a claim, the question must be decided from the well-pleaded facts of plaintiff’s petition.

1945It is true that the determination of the legal sufficiency of her claim for damages was a question of law (Jones v. Kansas City, 145 Kan. 591 , 66 P. 2d 579 ), but it was a question of fact whether the discrepancy in names of streets and locations were such that the city was unable in the exercise of reasonable diligence to locate the place stated or intended to be stated by the claim for damages.

1945It is true that the determination of the legal sufficiency of her claim for damages was a question of law (Jones v. Kansas City, 145 Kan. 591 , 66 P. 2d 579 ), but it was a question of fact whether the discrepancy in names of streets and locations were such that the city was unable in the exercise of reasonable diligence to locate the place stated or intended to be stated by the claim for damages.

1937(Sipes v. Pessemier, 144 Kan. 300 , 58 P. 2d 1085 , and citations.) In Waldon v. City of Seattle, 182 Wash. 493 , 47 P. 2d 978 , it was said: “Now, the legal sufficiency of the claim in its existent form was a matter with which the jury was not concerned.

1937(Sipes v. Pessemier, 144 Kan. 300 , 58 P. 2d 1085 , and citations.) In Waldon v. City of Seattle, 182 Wash. 493 , 47 P. 2d 978 , it was said: “Now, the legal sufficiency of the claim in its existent form was a matter with which the jury was not concerned.

1937(Sipes v. Pessemier, 144 Kan. 300 , 58 P. 2d 1085 , and citations.) In Waldon v. City of Seattle, 182 Wash. 493 , 47 P. 2d 978 , it was said: “Now, the legal sufficiency of the claim in its existent form was a matter with which the jury was not concerned.

1937(Sipes v. Pessemier, 144 Kan. 300 , 58 P. 2d 1085 , and citations.) In Waldon v. City of Seattle, 182 Wash. 493 , 47 P. 2d 978 , it was said: “Now, the legal sufficiency of the claim in its existent form was a matter with which the jury was not concerned.