burden of proving defense in Kansas

2015As the party benefitting from die error, the State bears the burden of proving the error was harmless. 292 Kan. at 560-61 .

2012The State, as the party benefitting from the error, has the burden of proving the error was harmless. “ ‘A constitutional error may be declared harmless where the [party benefitting from the error] proves beyond a reasonable doubt that the error complained of did not [affect substantial rights, meaning it did not] contribute to the verdict obtained.’ Kleypas, 272 Kan. at 1084 (citing Chapman, 386 U.S. at 24).” Ward, 292 Kan. at 568-69 .

2018"The party raising an affirmative defense also bears the burden of proving the defense." Munck v. KPERS , 35 Kan.

2018App. 2d 311 , 322, 130 P.3d 117 (2006).

2002Anderson v. McKune, 23 Kan.

1997Anderson v. McKune, 23 Kan.

1979We held in In re Estate of Brown, 189 Kan. 193 , 368 P.2d 27 (1962), in Syl. ¶ 4: “The burden of proving a claim against a decedent’s estate is on the claimant and the claim must be established by evidence clear and convincing to the triers, or trier, of the facts.” See also In re Estate of House, 164 Kan. 610 , 192 P.2d 179 (1948).

1979We held in In re Estate of Brown, 189 Kan. 193 , 368 P.2d 27 (1962), in Syl. ¶ 4: “The burden of proving a claim against a decedent’s estate is on the claimant and the claim must be established by evidence clear and convincing to the triers, or trier, of the facts.” See also In re Estate of House, 164 Kan. 610 , 192 P.2d 179 (1948).

1979We held in In re Estate of Brown, 189 Kan. 193 , 368 P.2d 27 (1962), in Syl. ¶ 4: “The burden of proving a claim against a decedent’s estate is on the claimant and the claim must be established by evidence clear and convincing to the triers, or trier, of the facts.” See also In re Estate of House, 164 Kan. 610 , 192 P.2d 179 (1948).

1979We held in In re Estate of Brown, 189 Kan. 193 , 368 P.2d 27 (1962), in Syl. ¶ 4: “The burden of proving a claim against a decedent’s estate is on the claimant and the claim must be established by evidence clear and convincing to the triers, or trier, of the facts.” See also In re Estate of House, 164 Kan. 610 , 192 P.2d 179 (1948).

2026State v. Lloyd, 52 Kan.

2018Data Tree v. Meek , 279 Kan. 445 , 454-55, 109 P.3d 1226 (2005).

2018Data Tree v. Meek , 279 Kan. 445 , 454-55, 109 P.3d 1226 (2005).

2017"The party raising an affirmative defense such as waiver bears the burden of proving the defense." Lyons v. Holder, 38 Kan.

2017App. 2d 131, 139 , 163 P.3d 343 (2007).

2015State v. Wells, 297 Kan. 741, 754 , 305 P.3d 568 (2013).

2015State v. Wells, 297 Kan. 741, 754 , 305 P.3d 568 (2013).

2012The State, as the party benefitting from the error, has the burden of proving the error was harmless. “ ‘A constitutional error may be declared harmless where the [party benefitting from the error] proves beyond a reasonable doubt that the error complained of did not [affect substantial rights, meaning it did not] contribute to the verdict obtained.’ Kleypas, 272 Kan. at 1084 (citing Chapman, 386 U.S. at 24).” Ward, 292 Kan. at 568-69 .

1986Jones v. Estate of Cooper, 216 Kan. 764 , 533 P.2d 1273 (1975); In re Estate of Winters, 192 Kan. 518 , 389 P.2d 818 (1964).

1986Jones v. Estate of Cooper, 216 Kan. 764 , 533 P.2d 1273 (1975); In re Estate of Winters, 192 Kan. 518 , 389 P.2d 818 (1964).

1986Jones v. Estate of Cooper, 216 Kan. 764 , 533 P.2d 1273 (1975); In re Estate of Winters, 192 Kan. 518 , 389 P.2d 818 (1964).

1986Jones v. Estate of Cooper, 216 Kan. 764 , 533 P.2d 1273 (1975); In re Estate of Winters, 192 Kan. 518 , 389 P.2d 818 (1964).

1962(In re Estate of Hill, 162 Kan. 385 , 176 P. 2d 515 .) The burden of proving a claim against a decedent’s estate is on the claimant and the claim must be established by evidence clear and convincing to the triers, or trier, of the facts; and where the findings of fact are not disputed or where they are supported by substantial, competent evidence they will not be disturbed upon appeal.

1962(In re Estate of Hill, 162 Kan. 385 , 176 P. 2d 515 .) The burden of proving a claim against a decedent’s estate is on the claimant and the claim must be established by evidence clear and convincing to the triers, or trier, of the facts; and where the findings of fact are not disputed or where they are supported by substantial, competent evidence they will not be disturbed upon appeal.

1962(In re Estate of House, 164 Kan. 610 , 192 P. 2d 179 ; In re Estate of House, 164 Kan. 613 , 192 P. 2d 177 .) The gist of plaintiff’s contention is that the court improperly construed the contract.

1962(In re Estate of House, 164 Kan. 610 , 192 P. 2d 179 ; In re Estate of House, 164 Kan. 613 , 192 P. 2d 177 .) The gist of plaintiff’s contention is that the court improperly construed the contract.

1918In Jevons v. Railroad Co., 70 Kan. 491 , 78 Pac. 817 , where strong evidence had been offered in support of an affirmative defense on which the court had directed a verdict, it was held that, the burden of proving the defense being upon the defendant, “it cannot be said, as a matter of law, that the jury were bound to accept the evidence as true, even if not contradicted.” (p. 497.) In Cobe v. Coughlin, 83 Kan. 522 , 112 Pac. 115 , where it was insisted that there was no opposing testimony and the court should direct a verdict, it was said that .“a court or jury is not required to acr cept a s

1918In Jevons v. Railroad Co., 70 Kan. 491 , 78 Pac. 817 , where strong evidence had been offered in support of an affirmative defense on which the court had directed a verdict, it was held that, the burden of proving the defense being upon the defendant, “it cannot be said, as a matter of law, that the jury were bound to accept the evidence as true, even if not contradicted.” (p. 497.) In Cobe v. Coughlin, 83 Kan. 522 , 112 Pac. 115 , where it was insisted that there was no opposing testimony and the court should direct a verdict, it was said that .“a court or jury is not required to acr cept a s

1918It cannot be said, as matter of law, that the jury (or court trying the facts) is bound to accept the. evidence as true, although not contradicted by direct evidence.” (p. 397.) (See, also, Harrod v. Latham, 77 Kan. 466 , 95 Pac. 11; Saindon v. Morrell, 78 Kan. 53 , 95 Pac. 1056 ; Fisk v. Neptune, 96 Kan. 16 , 149 Pac. 692 ; Wyrick v. Street Railway Co., 100 Kan. 122 , 163 Pac. 1059 .) The court that watched the course of the trial and the appearance of the witnesses denied the motion of relatrix to give judgment against the defendant notwithstanding the verdict of the jury, and also overruled

1918It cannot be said, as matter of law, that the jury (or court trying the facts) is bound to accept the. evidence as true, although not contradicted by direct evidence.” (p. 397.) (See, also, Harrod v. Latham, 77 Kan. 466 , 95 Pac. 11; Saindon v. Morrell, 78 Kan. 53 , 95 Pac. 1056 ; Fisk v. Neptune, 96 Kan. 16 , 149 Pac. 692 ; Wyrick v. Street Railway Co., 100 Kan. 122 , 163 Pac. 1059 .) The court that watched the course of the trial and the appearance of the witnesses denied the motion of relatrix to give judgment against the defendant notwithstanding the verdict of the jury, and also overruled

1918It cannot be said, as matter of law, that the jury (or court trying the facts) is bound to accept the. evidence as true, although not contradicted by direct evidence.” (p. 397.) (See, also, Harrod v. Latham, 77 Kan. 466 , 95 Pac. 11; Saindon v. Morrell, 78 Kan. 53 , 95 Pac. 1056 ; Fisk v. Neptune, 96 Kan. 16 , 149 Pac. 692 ; Wyrick v. Street Railway Co., 100 Kan. 122 , 163 Pac. 1059 .) The court that watched the course of the trial and the appearance of the witnesses denied the motion of relatrix to give judgment against the defendant notwithstanding the verdict of the jury, and also overruled

1918In Jevons v. Railroad Co., 70 Kan. 491 , 78 Pac. 817 , where strong evidence had been offered in support of an affirmative defense on which the court had directed a verdict, it was held that, the burden of proving the defense being upon the defendant, “it cannot be said, as a matter of law, that the jury were bound to accept the evidence as true, even if not contradicted.” (p. 497.) In Cobe v. Coughlin, 83 Kan. 522 , 112 Pac. 115 , where it was insisted that there was no opposing testimony and the court should direct a verdict, it was said that .“a court or jury is not required to acr cept a s

1918In Jevons v. Railroad Co., 70 Kan. 491 , 78 Pac. 817 , where strong evidence had been offered in support of an affirmative defense on which the court had directed a verdict, it was held that, the burden of proving the defense being upon the defendant, “it cannot be said, as a matter of law, that the jury were bound to accept the evidence as true, even if not contradicted.” (p. 497.) In Cobe v. Coughlin, 83 Kan. 522 , 112 Pac. 115 , where it was insisted that there was no opposing testimony and the court should direct a verdict, it was said that .“a court or jury is not required to acr cept a s

1918In Jevons v. Railroad Co., 70 Kan. 491 , 78 Pac. 817 , where strong evidence had been offered in support of an affirmative defense on which the court had directed a verdict, it was held that, the burden of proving the defense being upon the defendant, “it cannot be said, as a matter of law, that the jury were bound to accept the evidence as true, even if not contradicted.” (p. 497.) In Cobe v. Coughlin, 83 Kan. 522 , 112 Pac. 115 , where it was insisted that there was no opposing testimony and the court should direct a verdict, it was said that .“a court or jury is not required to acr cept a s

1918In Jevons v. Railroad Co., 70 Kan. 491 , 78 Pac. 817 , where strong evidence had been offered in support of an affirmative defense on which the court had directed a verdict, it was held that, the burden of proving the defense being upon the defendant, “it cannot be said, as a matter of law, that the jury were bound to accept the evidence as true, even if not contradicted.” (p. 497.) In Cobe v. Coughlin, 83 Kan. 522 , 112 Pac. 115 , where it was insisted that there was no opposing testimony and the court should direct a verdict, it was said that .“a court or jury is not required to acr cept a s

1918It cannot be said, as matter of law, that the jury (or court trying the facts) is bound to accept the. evidence as true, although not contradicted by direct evidence.” (p. 397.) (See, also, Harrod v. Latham, 77 Kan. 466 , 95 Pac. 11; Saindon v. Morrell, 78 Kan. 53 , 95 Pac. 1056 ; Fisk v. Neptune, 96 Kan. 16 , 149 Pac. 692 ; Wyrick v. Street Railway Co., 100 Kan. 122 , 163 Pac. 1059 .) The court that watched the course of the trial and the appearance of the witnesses denied the motion of relatrix to give judgment against the defendant notwithstanding the verdict of the jury, and also overruled

1918It cannot be said, as matter of law, that the jury (or court trying the facts) is bound to accept the. evidence as true, although not contradicted by direct evidence.” (p. 397.) (See, also, Harrod v. Latham, 77 Kan. 466 , 95 Pac. 11; Saindon v. Morrell, 78 Kan. 53 , 95 Pac. 1056 ; Fisk v. Neptune, 96 Kan. 16 , 149 Pac. 692 ; Wyrick v. Street Railway Co., 100 Kan. 122 , 163 Pac. 1059 .) The court that watched the course of the trial and the appearance of the witnesses denied the motion of relatrix to give judgment against the defendant notwithstanding the verdict of the jury, and also overruled

1918It cannot be said, as matter of law, that the jury (or court trying the facts) is bound to accept the. evidence as true, although not contradicted by direct evidence.” (p. 397.) (See, also, Harrod v. Latham, 77 Kan. 466 , 95 Pac. 11; Saindon v. Morrell, 78 Kan. 53 , 95 Pac. 1056 ; Fisk v. Neptune, 96 Kan. 16 , 149 Pac. 692 ; Wyrick v. Street Railway Co., 100 Kan. 122 , 163 Pac. 1059 .) The court that watched the course of the trial and the appearance of the witnesses denied the motion of relatrix to give judgment against the defendant notwithstanding the verdict of the jury, and also overruled

1918It cannot be said, as matter of law, that the jury (or court trying the facts) is bound to accept the. evidence as true, although not contradicted by direct evidence.” (p. 397.) (See, also, Harrod v. Latham, 77 Kan. 466 , 95 Pac. 11; Saindon v. Morrell, 78 Kan. 53 , 95 Pac. 1056 ; Fisk v. Neptune, 96 Kan. 16 , 149 Pac. 692 ; Wyrick v. Street Railway Co., 100 Kan. 122 , 163 Pac. 1059 .) The court that watched the course of the trial and the appearance of the witnesses denied the motion of relatrix to give judgment against the defendant notwithstanding the verdict of the jury, and also overruled