state law claim in Kansas

2017See K.S.A. 22-3414(3) (no party who fails to object in district court may assign as error the giving or failure to give an instruction unless instruction or failure to give instruction clearly erroneous); State v. Robinson, 303 Kan. 11, 282 , 363 P.3d 875 (2015).

2017See K.S.A. 22-3414(3) (no party who fails to object in district court may assign as error the giving or failure to give an instruction unless instruction or failure to give instruction clearly erroneous); State v. Robinson, 303 Kan. 11, 282 , 363 P.3d 875 (2015).

2007Finally, on the specific issue of whether a worker was barred from bringing a state law claim for earned but unpaid wages against his employer because his contract was illegal due to his undocumented status, the court held in Garcia v. Pasquareto, 11 Misc. 3d 1 , 3: “To condone dismissal of actions for wages earned but not paid, regardless of the legal theory employed, on the ground that such labor contracts are ‘illegal,’ would thus directly contravene the public policy of the State of New York and of the United States government.” Employers’ argument that a worker’s undocumented status malee

2007Finally, on the specific issue of whether a worker was barred from bringing a state law claim for earned but unpaid wages against his employer because his contract was illegal due to his undocumented status, the court *1091 held in Garcia v. Pasquareto, 11 Misc.3d 1, 3 , 812 N.Y.S.2d 216 : "To condone dismissal of actions for wages earned but not paid, regardless of the legal theory employed, on the ground that such labor contracts are `illegal,' would thus directly contravene the public policy of the State of New York and of the United States government." Employers' argument that a worker's u

2007In Design Kitchen v. Lagos, 388 Md. 718 , 882 A.2d 817 (2005), the court concluded that because the IRCA does not specifically prohibit undocumented workers from seeking employment, and the definition of “employee” under state law does not exclude employees who are undocumented workers, the employment contract is not illegal. 388 Md. at 739-40 ; see also Dowling v. Slotnik, 244 Con. 781, 807, 712 A.2d 396 (1998) (because IRCA does not declare it unlawful for an undocumented worker to seek employment and then accept offer of employment, rejected argument that “an employment agreement between an

2007In Design Kitchen v. Lagos, 388 Md. 718 , 882 A.2d 817 (2005), the court concluded that because the IRCA does not specifically prohibit undocumented workers from seeking employment, and the definition of "employee" under state law does not exclude employees who are undocumented workers, the employment contract is not illegal. 388 Md. at 739-40 , 882 A.2d 817 ; see also Dowling v. Slotnik, 244 Conn. 781, 807 , 712 A.2d 396 (1998) (because IRCA does not declare it unlawful for an undocumented worker to seek employment and then accept offer of employment, rejected argument that "an employment agr

2007Allis-Chalmers Corp., 471 U.S. at 220 .” Section 301 of the LMRA preempts all state law claims where the legal character of the claim requires interpretation of the express or implied terms of a collective bargaining agreement.

1993Allis-Chalmers Corp., 471 U.S. at 220 .

2007In Design Kitchen v. Lagos, 388 Md. 718 , 882 A.2d 817 (2005), the court concluded that because the IRCA does not specifically prohibit undocumented workers from seeking employment, and the definition of “employee” under state law does not exclude employees who are undocumented workers, the employment contract is not illegal. 388 Md. at 739-40 ; see also Dowling v. Slotnik, 244 Con. 781, 807, 712 A.2d 396 (1998) (because IRCA does not declare it unlawful for an undocumented worker to seek employment and then accept offer of employment, rejected argument that “an employment agreement between an

2007In Design Kitchen v. Lagos, 388 Md. 718 , 882 A.2d 817 (2005), the court concluded that because the IRCA does not specifically prohibit undocumented workers from seeking employment, and the definition of “employee” under state law does not exclude employees who are undocumented workers, the employment contract is not illegal. 388 Md. at 739-40 ; see also Dowling v. Slotnik, 244 Con. 781, 807, 712 A.2d 396 (1998) (because IRCA does not declare it unlawful for an undocumented worker to seek employment and then accept offer of employment, rejected argument that “an employment agreement between an

2022A state law claim is preempted if it "has 'a connection with, or reference to, airline' prices, routes, or services." Northwest, Inc. v. Ginsberg, 572 U.S. 273, 284 , 134 S. Ct. 1422 , 188 L.

2022A state law claim is preempted if it "has 'a connection with, or reference to, airline' prices, routes, or services." Northwest, Inc. v. Ginsberg, 572 U.S. 273, 284 , 134 S. Ct. 1422 , 188 L.

2021In re H.A.M., 25 Kan.

2021To the contrary, applying Kansas preclusion law furthers the "federalism principle of Erie" by ensuring there are not "'"substantial" variations [in outcomes] between state and federal litigation' which would '[l]ikely . . . influence the choice of a forum.'" 531 U.S. at 504 (quoting Hanna, 380 U.S. at 467-68 ).

2021State law governs the claim-preclusive effect of a federal court disposition of a state law claim rendered in a case in which the federal court exercised supplemental jurisdiction over the state law claim, overruling Stanfield v. Osborne Industries, Inc., 263 Kan. 388 , 949 P.2d 602 (1997), and Rhoten v. Dickson, 290 Kan. 92 , 223 P.3d 786 (2010). 5.

2021State law governs the claim-preclusive effect of a federal court disposition of a state law claim rendered in a case in which the federal court exercised supplemental jurisdiction over the state law claim, overruling Stanfield v. Osborne Industries, Inc., 263 Kan. 388 , 949 P.2d 602 (1997), and Rhoten v. Dickson, 290 Kan. 92 , 223 P.3d 786 (2010). 5.

2021State law governs the claim-preclusive effect of a federal court disposition of a state law claim rendered in a case in which the federal court exercised supplemental jurisdiction over the state law claim, overruling Stanfield v. Osborne Industries, Inc., 263 Kan. 388 , 949 P.2d 602 (1997), and Rhoten v. Dickson, 290 Kan. 92 , 223 P.3d 786 (2010). 5.

2021State law governs the claim-preclusive effect of a federal court disposition of a state law claim rendered in a case in which the federal court exercised supplemental jurisdiction over the state law claim, overruling Stanfield v. Osborne Industries, Inc., 263 Kan. 388 , 949 P.2d 602 (1997), and Rhoten v. Dickson, 290 Kan. 92 , 223 P.3d 786 (2010). 5.

2017Nonetheless, the weakness of the majority's reasoning on this issue, coming as it does on the heels of a reversal by the United States Supreme Court, leaves the impression that "the majority apparently starts with what it views as a palatable result and works backward to articulate a substitute rationale for demonstrably infirm precedent." Miller v. Johnson, 295 Kan. 636, 690 , 289 P.3d 1098 (2012) (Beier, J., concurring in part and dissenting in part).

2017Nonetheless, the weakness of the majority's reasoning on this issue, coming as it does on the heels of a reversal by the United States Supreme Court, leaves the impression that "the majority apparently starts with what it views as a palatable result and works backward to articulate a substitute rationale for demonstrably infirm precedent." Miller v. Johnson, 295 Kan. 636, 690 , 289 P.3d 1098 (2012) (Beier, J., concurring in part and dissenting in part).

2017The concurrence essentially argues the United States Supreme Court laid to rest the claim of error in Kansas v. Carr, 136 S. Ct. at 643-44 , even though that decision "is not technically binding in law on this court in the context of state law." (Slip. op. at 35 [Stegall, J., concurring].) Some observations are appropriate in response.

2016That 1 REPORTER'S NOTE: Senior Judge Malone was appointed to hear case No. 99,988 under the authority vested in the Supreme Court by K.S.A. 20-2616 to fill the vacancy on the court created by the appointment of Justice Nancy Moritz to the United States 10th Circuit Court of Appeals. 50 rule was first clearly enunciated for trial judges in this court's first modern-era death penalty case, State v. Kleypas, 272 Kan. 894, 1078 , 40 P.3d 139 (2001).

2016That 1 REPORTER'S NOTE: Senior Judge Malone was appointed to hear case No. 99,988 under the authority vested in the Supreme Court by K.S.A. 20-2616 to fill the vacancy on the court created by the appointment of Justice Nancy Moritz to the United States 10th Circuit Court of Appeals. 50 rule was first clearly enunciated for trial judges in this court's first modern-era death penalty case, State v. Kleypas, 272 Kan. 894, 1078 , 40 P.3d 139 (2001).

2005See Monroe v. Darr, 221 Kan. 281 , 559 P.2d 322 (1977) (breach of privacy action for unlawful search of residence); Busalt v. Doidge, 91 Kan. 37 , 136 Pac. 904 (1913) (action for assault against arresting officer).

2005See Monroe v. Darr, 221 Kan. 281 , 559 P.2d 322 (1977) (breach of privacy action for unlawful search of residence); Busalt v. Doidge, 91 Kan. 37 , 136 Pac. 904 (1913) (action for assault against arresting officer).

1995In FDIC v. Meyer, 510 U.S. __ , 127 L.