Already have an account? Sign in instead.
You stay signed in for 30 days on this browser.
Continue with Google Continue with MicrosoftNo account yet? Create a free one.
We sent a six-digit code.
It expires in ten minutes, works once, and only in this browser. Five wrong tries void it. Send another code.
Your account is live and the Cloudflare checks are off for this browser.
14 Kansas opinions name it 2 courts 1966–2026 3 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Kansas courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
Biglow v. Eidenberggreen2 sentences2025Biglow v. Eidenberg, 308 Kan. 873 , 887-88, 893-94, 424 P.3d 515 (2018). 2018See Biglow v. Eidenberg , 308 Kan. ----, 424 P.3d 515 (this day decided), slip op. at 29 (holding district court within discretion to prohibit during closing argument a "broad and abstract statement that a physician's job is to 'take care of people and help people, but really the safety' " because it did nothing to establish a deviation from the standard of care). | 1 | 2 |
Dawson v. Pragergreen2 sentences2018"The standard of medical ... care that is to be applied in any given case is not a rule of law, but a matter to be established by the testimony of competent medical experts." Nold v. Binyon , 272 Kan. 87 , Syl. ¶ 7, 31 P.3d 274 (2001) ; see also Dawson v. Prager , 276 Kan. 373 , 375, 76 P.3d 1036 (2003) ("Expert testimony is necessary to prove a deviation from the standard of care by a health care provider."). 2018"The standard of medical ... care that is to be applied in any given case is not a rule of law, but a matter to be established by the testimony of competent medical experts." Nold v. Binyon , 272 Kan. 87 , Syl. ¶ 7, 31 P.3d 274 (2001) ; see also Dawson v. Prager , 276 Kan. 373 , 375, 76 P.3d 1036 (2003) ("Expert testimony is necessary to prove a deviation from the standard of care by a health care provider."). | 1 | 2 |
Juhnke v. Evangelical Lutheran Good Samaritan Societygreen2 sentences2009See Juhnke, 6 Kan. 2009On appeal, this court reasoned that whether expert testimony is necessary to prove negligence depends on whether, under the facts, "the trier of fact would be able to understand, absent expert testimony, the nature of the standard of care required of defendant and the alleged deviation therefrom." 6 Kan.App.2d at 748 , 634 P.2d 1132 . | 1 | 2 |
Esquivel v. Wattersgreen2 sentences2009See Esquivel v. Watters, 286 Kan. 292, 296 , 183 P.3d 847 (2008) (plaintiff in medical malpractice case must show deviation from standard of care and that deviation caused plaintiff s injuries; ordinarily expert testimony is required to meet this burden). 2009See Esquivel v. Watters, 286 Kan. 292, 296 , 183 P.3d 847 (2008) (plaintiff in medical malpractice case must show deviation from standard of care and that deviation caused plaintiff s injuries; ordinarily expert testimony is required to meet this burden). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Kansas. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Rosscheart v. School District
neutral
2 sentences1999App. 2d 558, 561-62 , 775 P.2d 675 , rev. denied 245 Kan. 785 (1989) (if application of the last antecedent rule “ would involve an absurdity, do violence to the plain intent of the language, or if the context for other reason requires a deviation from the rule, it will be necessary and proper to look for another antecedent’ ”) (quoting In re Petition of School District of Omaha, 151 Neb. 304, 307-08 , 37 N.W.2d 209 [1949]). 1999App. 2d 558, 561-62 , 775 P.2d 675 , rev. denied 245 Kan. 785 (1989) (if application of the last antecedent rule “ would involve an absurdity, do violence to the plain intent of the language, or if the context for other reason requires a deviation from the rule, it will be necessary and proper to look for another antecedent’ ”) (quoting In re Petition of School District of Omaha, 151 Neb. 304, 307-08 , 37 N.W.2d 209 [1949]). | 2 | 1989–1999 |
Gaumer v. ROSSVILLE TRUCK AND TRACTOR CO.
green
2 sentences2026App. 2d 405, 408 , 202 P.3d 81 (2009) ("Whether expert testimony is necessary to prove negligence is dependent on whether, under the facts of a particular case, the trier of fact would be able to understand, absent expert testimony, the nature of the standard of care required of defendant and the alleged deviation from the standard."), aff'd on other grounds, 292 Kan. 749 , 257 P.3d 292 (2011). 2026App. 2d 405, 408 , 202 P.3d 81 (2009) ("Whether expert testimony is necessary to prove negligence is dependent on whether, under the facts of a particular case, the trier of fact would be able to understand, absent expert testimony, the nature of the standard of care required of defendant and the alleged deviation from the standard."), aff'd on other grounds, 292 Kan. 749 , 257 P.3d 292 (2011). | 1 | 2026–2026 |
Gaumer v. ROSSVILLE TRUCK AND TRACTOR CO.
green
1 sentence2026App. 2d 405, 408 , 202 P.3d 81 (2009) ("Whether expert testimony is necessary to prove negligence is dependent on whether, under the facts of a particular case, the trier of fact would be able to understand, absent expert testimony, the nature of the standard of care required of defendant and the alleged deviation from the standard."), aff'd on other grounds, 292 Kan. 749 , 257 P.3d 292 (2011). | 1 | 2026–2026 |
Burnette v. Eubanks
green
1 sentence2023Burnette v. Eubanks, 308 Kan. 838 , 842, 425 P.3d 343 (2018); Russell v. May, 306 Kan. 1058 , 1067- 68, 400 P.3d 647 (2017). | 1 | 2023–2023 |
Nold Ex Rel. Nold v. Binyon
green
2 sentences2018"The standard of medical ... care that is to be applied in any given case is not a rule of law, but a matter to be established by the testimony of competent medical experts." Nold v. Binyon , 272 Kan. 87 , Syl. ¶ 7, 31 P.3d 274 (2001) ; see also Dawson v. Prager , 276 Kan. 373 , 375, 76 P.3d 1036 (2003) ("Expert testimony is necessary to prove a deviation from the standard of care by a health care provider."). 2018"The standard of medical ... care that is to be applied in any given case is not a rule of law, but a matter to be established by the testimony of competent medical experts." Nold v. Binyon , 272 Kan. 87 , Syl. ¶ 7, 31 P.3d 274 (2001) ; see also Dawson v. Prager , 276 Kan. 373 , 375, 76 P.3d 1036 (2003) ("Expert testimony is necessary to prove a deviation from the standard of care by a health care provider."). | 1 | 2018–2018 |
Webb v. Lungstrum
green
2 sentences2013Dawson, 276 Kan. at 375 ; Webb v. Lungstrum, 223 Kan. 487, 490 , 575 P.2d 22 (1978). 2013Dawson, 276 Kan. at 375 ; Webb v. Lungstrum, 223 Kan. 487, 490 , 575 P.2d 22 (1978). | 1 | 2013–2013 |
Pope v. Ransdell
green
2 sentences2003Pope v. Ransdell, 251 Kan. 112, 120 , 833 P.2d 965 (1992). 2003Pope v. Ransdell, 251 Kan. 112, 120 , 833 P.2d 965 (1992). | 1 | 2003–2003 |
NEA-Goodland v. Board of Education
green
1 sentence1999App. 2d 558, 561-62 , 775 P.2d 675 , rev. denied 245 Kan. 785 (1989) (if application of the last antecedent rule “ would involve an absurdity, do violence to the plain intent of the language, or if the context for other reason requires a deviation from the rule, it will be necessary and proper to look for another antecedent’ ”) (quoting In re Petition of School District of Omaha, 151 Neb. 304, 307-08 , 37 N.W.2d 209 [1949]). | 1 | 1999–1999 |
Tatro v. Lueken
green
2 sentences1993A similar set of circumstances resulted in a verdict in favor of doctors in a malpractice case in Tatro v. Lueken, 212 Kan. 606 , 512 P.2d 529 (1973). 1993A similar set of circumstances resulted in a verdict in favor of doctors in a malpractice case in Tatro v. Lueken, 212 Kan. 606 , 512 P.2d 529 (1973). | 1 | 1993–1993 |
State v. Oswald
green
2 sentences1966We have carefully examined defendant’s brief and fail to find any valid reasons being advanced therein that would require a deviation from the rule as stated in the instruction; moreover, the rule has recently been recognized and applied in State v. Oswald, 197 Kan. 251 , 417 P. 2d 261 , and State v. Sims, 192 Kan. 587 , 389 P. 2d 812 . 1966We have carefully examined defendant’s brief and fail to find any valid reasons being advanced therein that would require a deviation from the rule as stated in the instruction; moreover, the rule has recently been recognized and applied in State v. Oswald, 197 Kan. 251 , 417 P. 2d 261 , and State v. Sims, 192 Kan. 587 , 389 P. 2d 812 . | 1 | 1966–1966 |
State v. Sims
neutral
2 sentences1966We have carefully examined defendant’s brief and fail to find any valid reasons being advanced therein that would require a deviation from the rule as stated in the instruction; moreover, the rule has recently been recognized and applied in State v. Oswald, 197 Kan. 251 , 417 P. 2d 261 , and State v. Sims, 192 Kan. 587 , 389 P. 2d 812 . 1966We have carefully examined defendant’s brief and fail to find any valid reasons being advanced therein that would require a deviation from the rule as stated in the instruction; moreover, the rule has recently been recognized and applied in State v. Oswald, 197 Kan. 251 , 417 P. 2d 261 , and State v. Sims, 192 Kan. 587 , 389 P. 2d 812 . | 1 | 1966–1966 |
Counted by distinct opinions that both name this issue and are annotated to the section; sections every opinion cites regardless of issue are not filtered here, so read the counts against the total above.
Opinions by the citing court's state. A doctrine retained in one state and abandoned in another shows up here as a year span that stalls.