mentioned rule in Kansas

2006In Swope v. Musser, 223 Kan. at 134 , this court considered “whether a sentencing judge after granting probation and releasing a defendant from custody may revoke the order without evidence of a violation of the terms of that order of probation.” While the Swope court stated that probation may not be revoked without evidence of a violation of probation conditions, the court mentioned an exception to this rule: “[W]hen misrepresentations have been made to the court by or on behalf of a defendant at the time of granting probation which misrepresentations were a basis for granting probation in th

2006In Swope v. Musser, 223 Kan. at 134 , this court considered “whether a sentencing judge after granting probation and releasing a defendant from custody may revoke the order without evidence of a violation of the terms of that order of probation.” While the Swope court stated that probation may not be revoked without evidence of a violation of probation conditions, the court mentioned an exception to this rule: “[W]hen misrepresentations have been made to the court by or on behalf of a defendant at the time of granting probation which misrepresentations were a basis for granting probation in th

2006Despite the fact that the Kansas Court of Appeals has explained that the “misrepresentation” or “’fraudulent concealment’ ” exception outlined in Swope is “widely accepted,” Andrews v. State, 11 Kan.

1964I would like to invite attention to DeGraw v. Kansas City & Leavenworth Transportation Co., 170 Kan. 713 , 228 P.2d 527 , where it was stated by this court: "While the statute and rules of the road require that a vehicle be driven on the right side of the road, and ordinarily a violation of such rule by a plaintiff constitutes negligence, yet such negligence will not bar recovery as a matter of law unless it appears that it was the proximate and legal cause of the collision." (Syl. ¶ 2.) The mentioned rule is sustained by earlier opinions of our court as disclosed at pages 718 and 719.

1964I would like to invite attention to DeGraw v. Kansas City & Leavenworth Transportation Co., 170 Kan. 713 , 228 P.2d 527 , where it was stated by this court: "While the statute and rules of the road require that a vehicle be driven on the right side of the road, and ordinarily a violation of such rule by a plaintiff constitutes negligence, yet such negligence will not bar recovery as a matter of law unless it appears that it was the proximate and legal cause of the collision." (Syl. ¶ 2.) The mentioned rule is sustained by earlier opinions of our court as disclosed at pages 718 and 719.

1963A person is deemed to assume the risk of injury when he knows of the dangers involved in a certain course of action, has a full appreciation of the risks involved and then voluntarily exposes himself to the risk. ( Shufelberger v. Worden, 189 Kan. 379 , 369 P.2d 382 , and cases cited therein.) In the performance of the ordinary duties of a farm laborer Hall would have assumed the normal risk; however, the position in which he was placed in the extraordinary use of the LP gas by defendant did not fall within this category.

1963A person is deemed to assume the risk of injury when he knows of the dangers involved in a certain course of action, has a full appreciation of the risks involved and then voluntarily exposes himself to the risk. ( Shufelberger v. Worden, 189 Kan. 379 , 369 P.2d 382 , and cases cited therein.) In the performance of the ordinary duties of a farm laborer Hall would have assumed the normal risk; however, the position in which he was placed in the extraordinary use of the LP gas by defendant did not fall within this category.

1960Co. v. Harry Crow & Son, Inc., 6 Wis. 2d 396 , 94 N. W. 2d 577 ; Louisville & Nashville Railroad Co. v. Mattingly (1958 Ky.), 318 S. W. 2d 844 ; Wagner v. Illinois Cent.

1960Co. v. Harry Crow & Son, Inc., 6 Wis. 2d 396 , 94 N. W. 2d 577 ; Louisville & Nashville Railroad Co. v. Mattingly (1958 Ky.), 318 S. W. 2d 844 ; Wagner v. Illinois Cent.

1960Co. v. Harry Crow & Son, Inc., 6 Wis. 2d 396 , 94 N. W. 2d 577 ; Louisville & Nashville Railroad Co. v. Mattingly (1958 Ky.), 318 S. W. 2d 844 ; Wagner v. Illinois Cent.

1959The right to claim and enforce his hen being statutory, the action can only be maintained upon a petition alleging a compliance with the statute, (p. 688.)” Other decisions which have adhered to the mentioned rule are Baker v. Griffin, 120 Kan. 448 , 243 Pac. 1057 ; Cobb v. Burford, 121 Kan. 199 , 246 Pac. 1009 ; Lumber Co. v. Dettinger, 110 Kan. 114 , 202 Pac. 622 .

1959The right to claim and enforce his hen being statutory, the action can only be maintained upon a petition alleging a compliance with the statute, (p. 688.)” Other decisions which have adhered to the mentioned rule are Baker v. Griffin, 120 Kan. 448 , 243 Pac. 1057 ; Cobb v. Burford, 121 Kan. 199 , 246 Pac. 1009 ; Lumber Co. v. Dettinger, 110 Kan. 114 , 202 Pac. 622 .

1959The right to claim and enforce his hen being statutory, the action can only be maintained upon a petition alleging a compliance with the statute, (p. 688.)” Other decisions which have adhered to the mentioned rule are Baker v. Griffin, 120 Kan. 448 , 243 Pac. 1057 ; Cobb v. Burford, 121 Kan. 199 , 246 Pac. 1009 ; Lumber Co. v. Dettinger, 110 Kan. 114 , 202 Pac. 622 .

1959The right to claim and enforce his hen being statutory, the action can only be maintained upon a petition alleging a compliance with the statute, (p. 688.)” Other decisions which have adhered to the mentioned rule are Baker v. Griffin, 120 Kan. 448 , 243 Pac. 1057 ; Cobb v. Burford, 121 Kan. 199 , 246 Pac. 1009 ; Lumber Co. v. Dettinger, 110 Kan. 114 , 202 Pac. 622 .

1959The right to claim and enforce his hen being statutory, the action can only be maintained upon a petition alleging a compliance with the statute, (p. 688.)” Other decisions which have adhered to the mentioned rule are Baker v. Griffin, 120 Kan. 448 , 243 Pac. 1057 ; Cobb v. Burford, 121 Kan. 199 , 246 Pac. 1009 ; Lumber Co. v. Dettinger, 110 Kan. 114 , 202 Pac. 622 .

1959The right to claim and enforce his hen being statutory, the action can only be maintained upon a petition alleging a compliance with the statute, (p. 688.)” Other decisions which have adhered to the mentioned rule are Baker v. Griffin, 120 Kan. 448 , 243 Pac. 1057 ; Cobb v. Burford, 121 Kan. 199 , 246 Pac. 1009 ; Lumber Co. v. Dettinger, 110 Kan. 114 , 202 Pac. 622 .

1959We pause to note, the defendant made no objection to the instructions given by the district court and he has not abstracted them; therefore, we assume the instructions given were correct and fully informed the jury as to how it might consider such testimony in accord with the above mentioned rule (State v. Barger, supra, p. 596; Rierson v. Southern Kansas Stage Lines Co., 146 Kan. 30 , 69 P. 2d 1 ).

1959We pause to note, the defendant made no objection to the instructions given by the district court and he has not abstracted them; therefore, we assume the instructions given were correct and fully informed the jury as to how it might consider such testimony in accord with the above mentioned rule (State v. Barger, supra, p. 596; Rierson v. Southern Kansas Stage Lines Co., 146 Kan. 30 , 69 P. 2d 1 ).

1958(City of Garnett v. Dowis, 144 Kan. 484 , 61 P. 2d 913 ; Henks v. Panning, 175 Kan. 424 [Syl. 3], 264 P. 2d 483 ; Coleman v. Patti Construction Co., 182 Kan. 53 [Syl. 4], 318 P. 2d 1028 .) Despite the fact this indulges somewhat in “speculation” as to what defendants’ evidence might have shown, nevertheless, the mentioned rule is well established and under the peculiar and unusual situation presented is entitled to be considered.

1958(City of Garnett v. Dowis, 144 Kan. 484 , 61 P. 2d 913 ; Henks v. Panning, 175 Kan. 424 [Syl. 3], 264 P. 2d 483 ; Coleman v. Patti Construction Co., 182 Kan. 53 [Syl. 4], 318 P. 2d 1028 .) Despite the fact this indulges somewhat in “speculation” as to what defendants’ evidence might have shown, nevertheless, the mentioned rule is well established and under the peculiar and unusual situation presented is entitled to be considered.

1958For some of the most recent authorities applying the mentioned rule see Geier v. Eagle-Cherokee Coal Mining Co., 181 Kan. 567 , 313 P. 2d 731 ; Smith v. Harris, 178 Kan. 183 , 284 P. 2d 611 ; Drury v. State Highway Commission, 175 Kan. 667 , 265 P. 2d 1022 ; Buechner v. Trude, 175 Kan. 572 , 266 P. 2d 267 ; Lanning v. Goldsberry, 173 Kan. 654 , 250 P. 2d 812 ; Ewing v. Pioneer Nat’l Life Ins.

1958For some of the most recent authorities applying the mentioned rule see Geier v. Eagle-Cherokee Coal Mining Co., 181 Kan. 567 , 313 P. 2d 731 ; Smith v. Harris, 178 Kan. 183 , 284 P. 2d 611 ; Drury v. State Highway Commission, 175 Kan. 667 , 265 P. 2d 1022 ; Buechner v. Trude, 175 Kan. 572 , 266 P. 2d 267 ; Lanning v. Goldsberry, 173 Kan. 654 , 250 P. 2d 812 ; Ewing v. Pioneer Nat’l Life Ins.

1958(City of Garnett v. Dowis, 144 Kan. 484 , 61 P. 2d 913 ; Henks v. Panning, 175 Kan. 424 [Syl. 3], 264 P. 2d 483 ; Coleman v. Patti Construction Co., 182 Kan. 53 [Syl. 4], 318 P. 2d 1028 .) Despite the fact this indulges somewhat in “speculation” as to what defendants’ evidence might have shown, nevertheless, the mentioned rule is well established and under the peculiar and unusual situation presented is entitled to be considered.

1958(City of Garnett v. Dowis, 144 Kan. 484 , 61 P. 2d 913 ; Henks v. Panning, 175 Kan. 424 [Syl. 3], 264 P. 2d 483 ; Coleman v. Patti Construction Co., 182 Kan. 53 [Syl. 4], 318 P. 2d 1028 .) Despite the fact this indulges somewhat in “speculation” as to what defendants’ evidence might have shown, nevertheless, the mentioned rule is well established and under the peculiar and unusual situation presented is entitled to be considered.

1958Co., 158 Kan. 371 , 147 P. 2d 755 ; Pennington v. Kross, 154 Kan. 667 , 121 P. 2d 275 .

1958Co., 158 Kan. 371 , 147 P. 2d 755 ; Pennington v. Kross, 154 Kan. 667 , 121 P. 2d 275 .

1958Co., 158 Kan. 371 , 147 P. 2d 755 ; Pennington v. Kross, 154 Kan. 667 , 121 P. 2d 275 .

1958Co., 158 Kan. 371 , 147 P. 2d 755 ; Pennington v. Kross, 154 Kan. 667 , 121 P. 2d 275 .

1958For some of the most recent authorities applying the mentioned rule see Geier v. Eagle-Cherokee Coal Mining Co., 181 Kan. 567 , 313 P. 2d 731 ; Smith v. Harris, 178 Kan. 183 , 284 P. 2d 611 ; Drury v. State Highway Commission, 175 Kan. 667 , 265 P. 2d 1022 ; Buechner v. Trude, 175 Kan. 572 , 266 P. 2d 267 ; Lanning v. Goldsberry, 173 Kan. 654 , 250 P. 2d 812 ; Ewing v. Pioneer Nat’l Life Ins.

1958For some of the most recent authorities applying the mentioned rule see Geier v. Eagle-Cherokee Coal Mining Co., 181 Kan. 567 , 313 P. 2d 731 ; Smith v. Harris, 178 Kan. 183 , 284 P. 2d 611 ; Drury v. State Highway Commission, 175 Kan. 667 , 265 P. 2d 1022 ; Buechner v. Trude, 175 Kan. 572 , 266 P. 2d 267 ; Lanning v. Goldsberry, 173 Kan. 654 , 250 P. 2d 812 ; Ewing v. Pioneer Nat’l Life Ins.

1958For some of the most recent authorities applying the mentioned rule see Geier v. Eagle-Cherokee Coal Mining Co., 181 Kan. 567 , 313 P. 2d 731 ; Smith v. Harris, 178 Kan. 183 , 284 P. 2d 611 ; Drury v. State Highway Commission, 175 Kan. 667 , 265 P. 2d 1022 ; Buechner v. Trude, 175 Kan. 572 , 266 P. 2d 267 ; Lanning v. Goldsberry, 173 Kan. 654 , 250 P. 2d 812 ; Ewing v. Pioneer Nat’l Life Ins.

1958For some of the most recent authorities applying the mentioned rule see Geier v. Eagle-Cherokee Coal Mining Co., 181 Kan. 567 , 313 P. 2d 731 ; Smith v. Harris, 178 Kan. 183 , 284 P. 2d 611 ; Drury v. State Highway Commission, 175 Kan. 667 , 265 P. 2d 1022 ; Buechner v. Trude, 175 Kan. 572 , 266 P. 2d 267 ; Lanning v. Goldsberry, 173 Kan. 654 , 250 P. 2d 812 ; Ewing v. Pioneer Nat’l Life Ins.

1958For some of the most recent authorities applying the mentioned rule see Geier v. Eagle-Cherokee Coal Mining Co., 181 Kan. 567 , 313 P. 2d 731 ; Smith v. Harris, 178 Kan. 183 , 284 P. 2d 611 ; Drury v. State Highway Commission, 175 Kan. 667 , 265 P. 2d 1022 ; Buechner v. Trude, 175 Kan. 572 , 266 P. 2d 267 ; Lanning v. Goldsberry, 173 Kan. 654 , 250 P. 2d 812 ; Ewing v. Pioneer Nat’l Life Ins.

1958For some of the most recent authorities applying the mentioned rule see Geier v. Eagle-Cherokee Coal Mining Co., 181 Kan. 567 , 313 P. 2d 731 ; Smith v. Harris, 178 Kan. 183 , 284 P. 2d 611 ; Drury v. State Highway Commission, 175 Kan. 667 , 265 P. 2d 1022 ; Buechner v. Trude, 175 Kan. 572 , 266 P. 2d 267 ; Lanning v. Goldsberry, 173 Kan. 654 , 250 P. 2d 812 ; Ewing v. Pioneer Nat’l Life Ins.

1958(City of Garnett v. Dowis, 144 Kan. 484 , 61 P. 2d 913 ; Henks v. Panning, 175 Kan. 424 [Syl. 3], 264 P. 2d 483 ; Coleman v. Patti Construction Co., 182 Kan. 53 [Syl. 4], 318 P. 2d 1028 .) Despite the fact this indulges somewhat in “speculation” as to what defendants’ evidence might have shown, nevertheless, the mentioned rule is well established and under the peculiar and unusual situation presented is entitled to be considered.

1958(City of Garnett v. Dowis, 144 Kan. 484 , 61 P. 2d 913 ; Henks v. Panning, 175 Kan. 424 [Syl. 3], 264 P. 2d 483 ; Coleman v. Patti Construction Co., 182 Kan. 53 [Syl. 4], 318 P. 2d 1028 .) Despite the fact this indulges somewhat in “speculation” as to what defendants’ evidence might have shown, nevertheless, the mentioned rule is well established and under the peculiar and unusual situation presented is entitled to be considered.

1958For some of the most recent authorities applying the mentioned rule see Geier v. Eagle-Cherokee Coal Mining Co., 181 Kan. 567 , 313 P. 2d 731 ; Smith v. Harris, 178 Kan. 183 , 284 P. 2d 611 ; Drury v. State Highway Commission, 175 Kan. 667 , 265 P. 2d 1022 ; Buechner v. Trude, 175 Kan. 572 , 266 P. 2d 267 ; Lanning v. Goldsberry, 173 Kan. 654 , 250 P. 2d 812 ; Ewing v. Pioneer Nat’l Life Ins.

1958For some of the most recent authorities applying the mentioned rule see Geier v. Eagle-Cherokee Coal Mining Co., 181 Kan. 567 , 313 P. 2d 731 ; Smith v. Harris, 178 Kan. 183 , 284 P. 2d 611 ; Drury v. State Highway Commission, 175 Kan. 667 , 265 P. 2d 1022 ; Buechner v. Trude, 175 Kan. 572 , 266 P. 2d 267 ; Lanning v. Goldsberry, 173 Kan. 654 , 250 P. 2d 812 ; Ewing v. Pioneer Nat’l Life Ins.

1956(Cleland v. Shewmake, 165 Kan. 592 , 197 P. 2d 699 ; Atchison v. State Highway Comm., 161 Kan. 661 , 171 P. 2d 287 ; Bartelle v. Murphy, 150 Kan. 468 , 94 P. 2d 705 .) Numerous other authorities supporting the mentioned rule are found in 4 Hatcher’s Kansas Digest [Rev.

1956(Cleland v. Shewmake, 165 Kan. 592 , 197 P. 2d 699 ; Atchison v. State Highway Comm., 161 Kan. 661 , 171 P. 2d 287 ; Bartelle v. Murphy, 150 Kan. 468 , 94 P. 2d 705 .) Numerous other authorities supporting the mentioned rule are found in 4 Hatcher’s Kansas Digest [Rev.

1956(Cleland v. Shewmake, 165 Kan. 592 , 197 P. 2d 699 ; Atchison v. State Highway Comm., 161 Kan. 661 , 171 P. 2d 287 ; Bartelle v. Murphy, 150 Kan. 468 , 94 P. 2d 705 .) Numerous other authorities supporting the mentioned rule are found in 4 Hatcher’s Kansas Digest [Rev.

1956(Cleland v. Shewmake, 165 Kan. 592 , 197 P. 2d 699 ; Atchison v. State Highway Comm., 161 Kan. 661 , 171 P. 2d 287 ; Bartelle v. Murphy, 150 Kan. 468 , 94 P. 2d 705 .) Numerous other authorities supporting the mentioned rule are found in 4 Hatcher’s Kansas Digest [Rev.

1956(Cleland v. Shewmake, 165 Kan. 592 , 197 P. 2d 699 ; Atchison v. State Highway Comm., 161 Kan. 661 , 171 P. 2d 287 ; Bartelle v. Murphy, 150 Kan. 468 , 94 P. 2d 705 .) Numerous other authorities supporting the mentioned rule are found in 4 Hatcher’s Kansas Digest [Rev.

1956(Cleland v. Shewmake, 165 Kan. 592 , 197 P. 2d 699 ; Atchison v. State Highway Comm., 161 Kan. 661 , 171 P. 2d 287 ; Bartelle v. Murphy, 150 Kan. 468 , 94 P. 2d 705 .) Numerous other authorities supporting the mentioned rule are found in 4 Hatcher’s Kansas Digest [Rev.

1954If nothing but the invasion appears, the injury is technical, and is compensated by nominal damages.” *722 In Hefley v. Baker, 19 Kan. 9 , it was said: “An action in the nature of trespass quare clausum fregit may be maintained against a mere wrongdoer, by any person in the possession of the land upon which the trespass is committed, without any reference to who owns the land; and the plaintiff may in such a case recover for whatever loss he sustains, and if no actual loss is shown, he may then recover nominal damages.” (Syl. f 1.) It is apparent the trial court erred in including the italiciz

1953(Davis v. Vermillion, 173 Kan. 508 , 249 P. 2d 625 .) The provisions of the deed make it clear that the grantors conveyed the property as residence lots, and that no dwelling should be erected thereon costing less than $3,000, and to consist of four or more rooms.

1953(Davis v. Vermillion, 173 Kan. 508 , 249 P. 2d 625 .) The provisions of the deed make it clear that the grantors conveyed the property as residence lots, and that no dwelling should be erected thereon costing less than $3,000, and to consist of four or more rooms.

1952(Lawrence National Bank v. Shirk, 173 Kan. 76, 80 , 244 P. 2d 179, 182 , and cases therein cited; Bennett v. Humphreys, 159 Kan. 416, 419 , 155 P. 2d 431 .) In view of the mentioned rule, we are of the opinion that the provisions contained in the deed clearly set forth the intention of the grantors and that there is no occasion for employing rules of judicial construction.

1952(Lawrence National Bank v. Shirk, 173 Kan. 76, 80 , 244 P. 2d 179, 182 , and cases therein cited; Bennett v. Humphreys, 159 Kan. 416, 419 , 155 P. 2d 431 .) In view of the mentioned rule, we are of the opinion that the provisions contained in the deed clearly set forth the intention of the grantors and that there is no occasion for employing rules of judicial construction.

1952The mentioned rule has been well discussed and analyzed in the cases of Sullivan v. Paramount Film Distributing Corp., 168 Kan. 524 , 213 P. 2d 959 , 14 A. L.

1952The mentioned rule has been well discussed and analyzed in the cases of Sullivan v. Paramount Film Distributing Corp., 168 Kan. 524 , 213 P. 2d 959 , 14 A. L.

1952The mentioned rule has been reiterated in the very recent case of Smith v. Kansas Transport Co., 172 Kan. 26 , 238 P. 2d 553 .

1952The mentioned rule has been reiterated in the very recent case of Smith v. Kansas Transport Co., 172 Kan. 26 , 238 P. 2d 553 .