savings clause in Kansas

1987Davis v. Hughes, 229 Kan. at 101 ; Lakeview Village, Inc. v. Board of Johnson County Comm’rs, 232 Kan. 711 , 659 P.2d 187 (1983).” Jackson v. American Best Freight System, Inc., 238 Kan. 322, 324-25 , 709 P.2d 983 (1985).

1985Davis v. Hughes, 229 Kan. at 101 ; Lakeview Village, Inc., v. Board of Johnson County Comm’rs, 232 Kan. 711 , 659 P.2d 187 (1983).

1996Davis v. Hughes, 229 Kan. at 101; Lakeview Village, Inc. v. Board of Johnson County Comm'rs, 232 Kan. 711 , 659 P.2d 187 (1983).

1996Davis v. Hughes, 229 Kan. at 101; Lakeview Village, Inc. v. Board of Johnson County Comm'rs, 232 Kan. 711 , 659 P.2d 187 (1983).

1994In re Estate of Laue , 225 Kan. 177 , 188 (1979).

1985Davis v. Hughes, 229 Kan. 91 , Syl. ¶¶ 6,7, 622 P.2d 641 (1981); Nitchals v. Williams, *340 225 Kan. 285 , Syl. ¶¶ 1-3, 590 P.2d 582 (1979); In re Estate of Laue, 225 Kan. 177, 187-88 , 589 P.2d 558 (1979).

1985Davis v. Hughes, 229 Kan. 91 , Syl. ¶¶ 6,7, 622 P.2d 641 (1981); Nitchals v. Williams, *340 225 Kan. 285 , Syl. ¶¶ 1-3, 590 P.2d 582 (1979); In re Estate of Laue, 225 Kan. 177, 187-88 , 589 P.2d 558 (1979).

1985Davis v. Hughes, 229 Kan. 91 , Syl. ¶¶ 6,7, 622 P.2d 641 (1981); Nitchals v. Williams, *340 225 Kan. 285 , Syl. ¶¶ 1-3, 590 P.2d 582 (1979); In re Estate of Laue, 225 Kan. 177, 187-88 , 589 P.2d 558 (1979).

2012But the court's analysis did produce this relevant dictum: "[I]f there has been no knowing withholding, there would be no need for the savings clause." 40 Kan.App.2d at 829 , 196 P.3d 402 The Seth court found that its conclusion— K.S.A. 59-618 saved the son's probate petition from being time-barred—was consistent with Kansas' public policy of probating all legally executed wills and not suppressing or withholding wills from probate via "narrow and technical applications of the statutes governing probate." Seth, 40 Kan.App.2d at 829-30 , 196 P.3d 402 (citing Harper, 202 Kan. at 158 , 446 P.2d 7

2012But the court's analysis did produce this relevant dictum: "[I]f there has been no knowing withholding, there would be no need for the savings clause." 40 Kan.App.2d at 829 , 196 P.3d 402 The Seth court found that its conclusion— K.S.A. 59-618 saved the son's probate petition from being time-barred—was consistent with Kansas' public policy of probating all legally executed wills and not suppressing or withholding wills from probate via "narrow and technical applications of the statutes governing probate." Seth, 40 Kan.App.2d at 829-30 , 196 P.3d 402 (citing Harper, 202 Kan. at 158 , 446 P.2d 7

2012But the court's analysis did produce this relevant dictum: "[I]f there has been no knowing withholding, there would be no need for the savings clause." 40 Kan.App.2d at 829 , 196 P.3d 402 The Seth court found that its conclusion— K.S.A. 59-618 saved the son's probate petition from being time-barred—was consistent with Kansas' public policy of probating all legally executed wills and not suppressing or withholding wills from probate via "narrow and technical applications of the statutes governing probate." Seth, 40 Kan.App.2d at 829-30 , 196 P.3d 402 (citing Harper, 202 Kan. at 158 , 446 P.2d 7

2012But the court's analysis did produce this relevant dictum: "[I]f there has been no knowing withholding, there would be no need for the savings clause." 40 Kan.App.2d at 829 , 196 P.3d 402 The Seth court found that its conclusion— K.S.A. 59-618 saved the son's probate petition from being time-barred—was consistent with Kansas' public policy of probating all legally executed wills and not suppressing or withholding wills from probate via "narrow and technical applications of the statutes governing probate." Seth, 40 Kan.App.2d at 829-30 , 196 P.3d 402 (citing Harper, 202 Kan. at 158 , 446 P.2d 7

2010Both K.S.A. 77-621(a)(2) and K.S.A. 2009 Supp. 77-621(a)(2) state: “[T]he validity of agency action shall be determined in accordance with the standards of judicial review provided in this section, as applied to the agency action at the time it was taken.” (Emphasis added.) This court previously has held “all rights of action will be enforced under [procedural amendments] without regard to whether they accrued before or after such change of law and without regard to whether or not the suit has been instituted, unless there is a savings clause as to existing legislation.” (Emphasis added.) Jone

2010Both K.S.A. 77-621(a)(2) and K.S.A. 2009 Supp. 77-621(a)(2) state: “[T]he validity of agency action shall be determined in accordance with the standards of judicial review provided in this section, as applied to the agency action at the time it was taken.” (Emphasis added.) This court previously has held “all rights of action will be enforced under [procedural amendments] without regard to whether they accrued before or after such change of law and without regard to whether or not the suit has been instituted, unless there is a savings clause as to existing legislation.” (Emphasis added.) Jone

2010The court held, “[t]he repose provisions of 60-513(c) are not applicable to defeat the savings clause of 60-518 when the initial action was timely filed, *866 even though the second action is not filed until more than four years after the act which gave rise to the cause of action.” 257 Kan. at 822 .

2007Presumably to counterattack this application of the savings clause, the Chartrands cite Estate of Norris v. Hastings, 36 Kan.

2007Presumably to counterattack this application of the savings clause, the Chartrands cite Estate of Norris v. Hastings, 36 Kan.

2000Based on the clear language of the statute, we held that the trial court was correct in its decision that the savings clause applied only to drivers of commercial vehicles. 260 Kan. at 567 .

1995The district court affirmed PERB, holding that the savings clause could not be a mandatory subject of bargaining under the two-part test set forth in Pittsburg State, 233 Kan. at 816 .

1994As a result, [a state] is entitled to control the use of [a product] for compensatory aims by holding Chevron hable for injuries that could have been prevented by a more adequate label.” 736 F.2d at 1541 .

1987Davis v. Hughes, 229 Kan. at 101 ; Lakeview Village, Inc. v. Board of Johnson County Comm’rs, 232 Kan. 711 , 659 P.2d 187 (1983).” Jackson v. American Best Freight System, Inc., 238 Kan. 322, 324-25 , 709 P.2d 983 (1985).

1987Davis v. Hughes, 229 Kan. at 101 ; Lakeview Village, Inc. v. Board of Johnson County Comm’rs, 232 Kan. 711 , 659 P.2d 187 (1983).” Jackson v. American Best Freight System, Inc., 238 Kan. 322, 324-25 , 709 P.2d 983 (1985).

1960The Iowa act (chapter 546A, Code, 1954; chapter 239, Acts, 55th General Assembly, 1953, requiring a license to sell new merchandise at public auction) was held constitutional in Steinberg-Baum & Co. v. Countryman, 247 Iowa 923 , 77 N. W. 2d 15 . *679 A careful study of the Nebraska and Iowa statutes indicates that the Nebraska act is almost identical with the Kansas act, except it does not have a savings clause and has an additional provision which conditions the required bond (in addition to the provisions of Section 5 in the Kansas act) on “the payment by the applicant to purchasers at such

1960The Iowa act (chapter 546A, Code, 1954; chapter 239, Acts, 55th General Assembly, 1953, requiring a license to sell new merchandise at public auction) was held constitutional in Steinberg-Baum & Co. v. Countryman, 247 Iowa 923 , 77 N. W. 2d 15 . *679 A careful study of the Nebraska and Iowa statutes indicates that the Nebraska act is almost identical with the Kansas act, except it does not have a savings clause and has an additional provision which conditions the required bond (in addition to the provisions of Section 5 in the Kansas act) on “the payment by the applicant to purchasers at such