followed rule in Kansas

1982Co., 339 U S 306, 94 L ed 865, 70 S Ct 652 , to the effect that, if feasible, notice must reasonably be calculated to inform parties of proceedings which may directly and adversely affect their legally protected interests.” p. 453.

1970Co., 339 U S 306, 94 L ed 865, 70 S Ct 652 , to the effect that, if feasible, notice must reasonably be calculated to inform parties of proceedings which may directly and adversely affect their legally protected interests.

2002This court followed that rule in In re House Bill No. 3083, 251 Kan. at 606 , acknowledging a permissible total deviation of 10% from an “ideal” district, as stated in Regester when reapportioning the 1992 Kansas House and Senate districts.

1994In Hamm v. Hamm, 207 Kan. 431 , 485 P.2d 221 (1971), the mother voluntarily relinquished custody of her four children after filing for divorce and becoming financially unable to provide for her children.

1994In Hamm v. Hamm, 207 Kan. 431 , 485 P.2d 221 (1971), the mother voluntarily relinquished custody of her four children after filing for divorce and becoming financially unable to provide for her children.

1982In Vickers v. Wichita State University, 213 Kan. 614 , Syl. ¶ 1, 518 P.2d 512 (1974), the court held: “Loss of profits resulting from a breach of contract may be recovered as damages when such profits are proved with reasonable certainty, and when they may reasonably be considered to have been within the contemplation of the parties.” In Butler v. Westgate State Bank, 226 Kan. 581 , 602 P.2d 1276 (1979), the court followed the rule stated in Vickers , and added at Syl. ¶ 2: “Evidence of past profitability is not the sole method of showing lost profits.

1982In Vickers v. Wichita State University, 213 Kan. 614 , Syl. ¶ 1, 518 P.2d 512 (1974), the court held: “Loss of profits resulting from a breach of contract may be recovered as damages when such profits are proved with reasonable certainty, and when they may reasonably be considered to have been within the contemplation of the parties.” In Butler v. Westgate State Bank, 226 Kan. 581 , 602 P.2d 1276 (1979), the court followed the rule stated in Vickers , and added at Syl. ¶ 2: “Evidence of past profitability is not the sole method of showing lost profits.

1982In Vickers v. Wichita State University, 213 Kan. 614 , Syl. ¶ 1, 518 P.2d 512 (1974), the court held: “Loss of profits resulting from a breach of contract may be recovered as damages when such profits are proved with reasonable certainty, and when they may reasonably be considered to have been within the contemplation of the parties.” In Butler v. Westgate State Bank, 226 Kan. 581 , 602 P.2d 1276 (1979), the court followed the rule stated in Vickers , and added at Syl. ¶ 2: “Evidence of past profitability is not the sole method of showing lost profits.

1982In Vickers v. Wichita State University, 213 Kan. 614 , Syl. ¶ 1, 518 P.2d 512 (1974), the court held: “Loss of profits resulting from a breach of contract may be recovered as damages when such profits are proved with reasonable certainty, and when they may reasonably be considered to have been within the contemplation of the parties.” In Butler v. Westgate State Bank, 226 Kan. 581 , 602 P.2d 1276 (1979), the court followed the rule stated in Vickers , and added at Syl. ¶ 2: “Evidence of past profitability is not the sole method of showing lost profits.

1972All of these instructions were substantially identical to their counterparts set out verbatim in Rohr v. Henderson, 207 Kan. 123, 124-25 , 483 P. 2d 1089 , where they were numbered respectively 9, 10, 11 and 13.

1972All of these instructions were substantially identical to their counterparts set out verbatim in Rohr v. Henderson, 207 Kan. 123, 124-25 , 483 P. 2d 1089 , where they were numbered respectively 9, 10, 11 and 13.

1966In State v. McCarther, 197 Kan. 279 , 416 P. 2d 290 , this court followed the rule requiring that the voluntary nature of a statement should be determined in a separate hearing by the trial court outside the presence of the jury before such statement can be introduced in evidence.

1966In State v. McCarther, 197 Kan. 279 , 416 P. 2d 290 , this court followed the rule requiring that the voluntary nature of a statement should be determined in a separate hearing by the trial court outside the presence of the jury before such statement can be introduced in evidence.

1949It is to be noted that in each of the last two cases from which we have quoted the rule announced in Topeka v. Dwyer, 70 Kan. 244 , 78 Pac. 471 , is followed and approved.

1948In Mann v. Mann, 136 Kan. 331 , 15 P. 2d 478 , the court followed the rule that the allowance for alimony or division of property rests largely in the discretion of the trial court, but that where the discretion is arbitrary and not judicial and the judgment is inequitable it will be set aside.

1948In Mann v. Mann, 136 Kan. 331 , 15 P. 2d 478 , the court followed the rule that the allowance for alimony or division of property rests largely in the discretion of the trial court, but that where the discretion is arbitrary and not judicial and the judgment is inequitable it will be set aside.

1937Society, 181 Mass. 285 , 63 N. E. 885 .

1937Society, 181 Mass. 285 , 63 N. E. 885 .

1931This court followed the rule laid down in the case of Manufacturing Co. v. Deposit Co., supra, when it held in the case of Road Supply Metal Company v. Casualty and Surety Company, 121 Kan. 299 , 246 Pac. 503 , that the surety company was liable to the materialman for material furnished a contractor to be used in the construction of a road.

1931This court followed the rule laid down in the case of Manufacturing Co. v. Deposit Co., supra, when it held in the case of Road Supply Metal Company v. Casualty and Surety Company, 121 Kan. 299 , 246 Pac. 503 , that the surety company was liable to the materialman for material furnished a contractor to be used in the construction of a road.

1918The modern rule applicable here was. succinctly stated by the chief justice in Brown v. Brown, 101 Kan. 335 , 166 Pac. 499 , to be “that the intention of the testator, as gathered from all parts of the will, is to be given effect, and that doubtful or inaccurate expressions in the will shall not override the obvious intention of the testator.” (syl. ¶ 1.) The trial court followed this rule, and the decree is affirmed.

1918The modern rule applicable here was. succinctly stated by the chief justice in Brown v. Brown, 101 Kan. 335 , 166 Pac. 499 , to be “that the intention of the testator, as gathered from all parts of the will, is to be given effect, and that doubtful or inaccurate expressions in the will shall not override the obvious intention of the testator.” (syl. ¶ 1.) The trial court followed this rule, and the decree is affirmed.

1916In deciding the case the court remarked: “In applying the general rule that the period of going to and returning from work is not covered by the act, it is held that the employment is not limited by the exact time when the workman reaches the scene of his labor and begins it, nor when he ceases, but includes a reasonable time, space, and opportunity before and after, while he is at or near his place of employment.” (Hills v. Blair, 182 Mich. 20, 27 , 148 N. W. 243 .) In Zabriskie v. Erie R.

1916In deciding the case the court remarked: “In applying the general rule that the period of going to and returning from work is not covered by the act, it is held that the employment is not limited by the exact time when the workman reaches the scene of his labor and begins it, nor when he ceases, but includes a reasonable time, space, and opportunity before and after, while he is at or near his place of employment.” (Hills v. Blair, 182 Mich. 20, 27 , 148 N. W. 243 .) In Zabriskie v. Erie R.

1914(Ernst v. Foster, 58 Kan. 438 , 49 Pac. 527 ; Williams v. McKinney, 34 Kan. 514 , 9 Pac. 265 ; Hurst v. Weaver, 75 Kan. 758, 762 , 90 Pac. 297 ; Holt v. Wilson, 82 Kan. 268 , 108 Pac. 87 ; Blair v. Blair, 82 Kan. 464 , 108 Pac. 827 ; Rooney v. Hurlbut, 79 Kan. 231 , 98 Pac. 765 , and many other cases which might be cited.) The rule applicable to just such a case was well stated in Williams v. McKinney, supra, where it was said: “The words used in the first part of this provision, taken by themselves, and without qualification or limitation, would certainly give to the widow an estate in fee si

1914(Ernst v. Foster, 58 Kan. 438 , 49 Pac. 527 ; Williams v. McKinney, 34 Kan. 514 , 9 Pac. 265 ; Hurst v. Weaver, 75 Kan. 758, 762 , 90 Pac. 297 ; Holt v. Wilson, 82 Kan. 268 , 108 Pac. 87 ; Blair v. Blair, 82 Kan. 464 , 108 Pac. 827 ; Rooney v. Hurlbut, 79 Kan. 231 , 98 Pac. 765 , and many other cases which might be cited.) The rule applicable to just such a case was well stated in Williams v. McKinney, supra, where it was said: “The words used in the first part of this provision, taken by themselves, and without qualification or limitation, would certainly give to the widow an estate in fee si

1914(Ernst v. Foster, 58 Kan. 438 , 49 Pac. 527 ; Williams v. McKinney, 34 Kan. 514 , 9 Pac. 265 ; Hurst v. Weaver, 75 Kan. 758, 762 , 90 Pac. 297 ; Holt v. Wilson, 82 Kan. 268 , 108 Pac. 87 ; Blair v. Blair, 82 Kan. 464 , 108 Pac. 827 ; Rooney v. Hurlbut, 79 Kan. 231 , 98 Pac. 765 , and many other cases which might be cited.) The rule applicable to just such a case was well stated in Williams v. McKinney, supra, where it was said: “The words used in the first part of this provision, taken by themselves, and without qualification or limitation, would certainly give to the widow an estate in fee si

1914(Ernst v. Foster, 58 Kan. 438 , 49 Pac. 527 ; Williams v. McKinney, 34 Kan. 514 , 9 Pac. 265 ; Hurst v. Weaver, 75 Kan. 758, 762 , 90 Pac. 297 ; Holt v. Wilson, 82 Kan. 268 , 108 Pac. 87 ; Blair v. Blair, 82 Kan. 464 , 108 Pac. 827 ; Rooney v. Hurlbut, 79 Kan. 231 , 98 Pac. 765 , and many other cases which might be cited.) The rule applicable to just such a case was well stated in Williams v. McKinney, supra, where it was said: “The words used in the first part of this provision, taken by themselves, and without qualification or limitation, would certainly give to the widow an estate in fee si

1914(Ernst v. Foster, 58 Kan. 438 , 49 Pac. 527 ; Williams v. McKinney, 34 Kan. 514 , 9 Pac. 265 ; Hurst v. Weaver, 75 Kan. 758, 762 , 90 Pac. 297 ; Holt v. Wilson, 82 Kan. 268 , 108 Pac. 87 ; Blair v. Blair, 82 Kan. 464 , 108 Pac. 827 ; Rooney v. Hurlbut, 79 Kan. 231 , 98 Pac. 765 , and many other cases which might be cited.) The rule applicable to just such a case was well stated in Williams v. McKinney, supra, where it was said: “The words used in the first part of this provision, taken by themselves, and without qualification or limitation, would certainly give to the widow an estate in fee si

1914(Ernst v. Foster, 58 Kan. 438 , 49 Pac. 527 ; Williams v. McKinney, 34 Kan. 514 , 9 Pac. 265 ; Hurst v. Weaver, 75 Kan. 758, 762 , 90 Pac. 297 ; Holt v. Wilson, 82 Kan. 268 , 108 Pac. 87 ; Blair v. Blair, 82 Kan. 464 , 108 Pac. 827 ; Rooney v. Hurlbut, 79 Kan. 231 , 98 Pac. 765 , and many other cases which might be cited.) The rule applicable to just such a case was well stated in Williams v. McKinney, supra, where it was said: “The words used in the first part of this provision, taken by themselves, and without qualification or limitation, would certainly give to the widow an estate in fee si

1914(Ernst v. Foster, 58 Kan. 438 , 49 Pac. 527 ; Williams v. McKinney, 34 Kan. 514 , 9 Pac. 265 ; Hurst v. Weaver, 75 Kan. 758, 762 , 90 Pac. 297 ; Holt v. Wilson, 82 Kan. 268 , 108 Pac. 87 ; Blair v. Blair, 82 Kan. 464 , 108 Pac. 827 ; Rooney v. Hurlbut, 79 Kan. 231 , 98 Pac. 765 , and many other cases which might be cited.) The rule applicable to just such a case was well stated in Williams v. McKinney, supra, where it was said: “The words used in the first part of this provision, taken by themselves, and without qualification or limitation, would certainly give to the widow an estate in fee si

1914(Ernst v. Foster, 58 Kan. 438 , 49 Pac. 527 ; Williams v. McKinney, 34 Kan. 514 , 9 Pac. 265 ; Hurst v. Weaver, 75 Kan. 758, 762 , 90 Pac. 297 ; Holt v. Wilson, 82 Kan. 268 , 108 Pac. 87 ; Blair v. Blair, 82 Kan. 464 , 108 Pac. 827 ; Rooney v. Hurlbut, 79 Kan. 231 , 98 Pac. 765 , and many other cases which might be cited.) The rule applicable to just such a case was well stated in Williams v. McKinney, supra, where it was said: “The words used in the first part of this provision, taken by themselves, and without qualification or limitation, would certainly give to the widow an estate in fee si

1914(Ernst v. Foster, 58 Kan. 438 , 49 Pac. 527 ; Williams v. McKinney, 34 Kan. 514 , 9 Pac. 265 ; Hurst v. Weaver, 75 Kan. 758, 762 , 90 Pac. 297 ; Holt v. Wilson, 82 Kan. 268 , 108 Pac. 87 ; Blair v. Blair, 82 Kan. 464 , 108 Pac. 827 ; Rooney v. Hurlbut, 79 Kan. 231 , 98 Pac. 765 , and many other cases which might be cited.) The rule applicable to just such a case was well stated in Williams v. McKinney, supra, where it was said: “The words used in the first part of this provision, taken by themselves, and without qualification or limitation, would certainly give to the widow an estate in fee si

1914(Ernst v. Foster, 58 Kan. 438 , 49 Pac. 527 ; Williams v. McKinney, 34 Kan. 514 , 9 Pac. 265 ; Hurst v. Weaver, 75 Kan. 758, 762 , 90 Pac. 297 ; Holt v. Wilson, 82 Kan. 268 , 108 Pac. 87 ; Blair v. Blair, 82 Kan. 464 , 108 Pac. 827 ; Rooney v. Hurlbut, 79 Kan. 231 , 98 Pac. 765 , and many other cases which might be cited.) The rule applicable to just such a case was well stated in Williams v. McKinney, supra, where it was said: “The words used in the first part of this provision, taken by themselves, and without qualification or limitation, would certainly give to the widow an estate in fee si

1914(Ernst v. Foster, 58 Kan. 438 , 49 Pac. 527 ; Williams v. McKinney, 34 Kan. 514 , 9 Pac. 265 ; Hurst v. Weaver, 75 Kan. 758, 762 , 90 Pac. 297 ; Holt v. Wilson, 82 Kan. 268 , 108 Pac. 87 ; Blair v. Blair, 82 Kan. 464 , 108 Pac. 827 ; Rooney v. Hurlbut, 79 Kan. 231 , 98 Pac. 765 , and many other cases which might be cited.) The rule applicable to just such a case was well stated in Williams v. McKinney, supra, where it was said: “The words used in the first part of this provision, taken by themselves, and without qualification or limitation, would certainly give to the widow an estate in fee si