showing claim in Kansas

1937In Hope v. Bashor, 99 Kan. 804 , 163 Pac. 463 , it was said that— “In this state an injunction will not be granted against a judgment merely because it is void for want of a legal service of summons, without a showing that a claim is made in good faith that it is unjust as well as based upon an insufficient notice.” (p. 806.) In True v. Mendenhall, 67 Kan. 497 , 73 Pac. 67 , it was held that— “Equitable relief will not be granted against a justice’s judgment, void for want of jurisdiction of the person of the defendant, without a showing, or at least a bona fide claim, of the existence of a me

1917(True v. Mendenhall, 67 Kan. 497 , 73 Pac. 67 ; O’Neil v. Eppler, 90 Kan. 314 , 133 Pac. 705 .) And the same, or a more rigorous, requirement is exacted elsewhere, as a condition to such relief. (23 Cyc. 997; Note, 14 L.

1937In Hope v. Bashor, 99 Kan. 804 , 163 Pac. 463 , it was said that— “In this state an injunction will not be granted against a judgment merely because it is void for want of a legal service of summons, without a showing that a claim is made in good faith that it is unjust as well as based upon an insufficient notice.” (p. 806.) In True v. Mendenhall, 67 Kan. 497 , 73 Pac. 67 , it was held that— “Equitable relief will not be granted against a justice’s judgment, void for want of jurisdiction of the person of the defendant, without a showing, or at least a bona fide claim, of the existence of a me

1917(True v. Mendenhall, 67 Kan. 497 , 73 Pac. 67 ; O’Neil v. Eppler, 90 Kan. 314 , 133 Pac. 705 .) And the same, or a more rigorous, requirement is exacted elsewhere, as a condition to such relief. (23 Cyc. 997; Note, 14 L.

1937In Hope v. Bashor, 99 Kan. 804 , 163 Pac. 463 , it was said that— “In this state an injunction will not be granted against a judgment merely because it is void for want of a legal service of summons, without a showing that a claim is made in good faith that it is unjust as well as based upon an insufficient notice.” (p. 806.) In True v. Mendenhall, 67 Kan. 497 , 73 Pac. 67 , it was held that— “Equitable relief will not be granted against a justice’s judgment, void for want of jurisdiction of the person of the defendant, without a showing, or at least a bona fide claim, of the existence of a me

1937In Hope v. Bashor, 99 Kan. 804 , 163 Pac. 463 , it was said that— “In this state an injunction will not be granted against a judgment merely because it is void for want of a legal service of summons, without a showing that a claim is made in good faith that it is unjust as well as based upon an insufficient notice.” (p. 806.) In True v. Mendenhall, 67 Kan. 497 , 73 Pac. 67 , it was held that— “Equitable relief will not be granted against a justice’s judgment, void for want of jurisdiction of the person of the defendant, without a showing, or at least a bona fide claim, of the existence of a me

2024State v. Godfrey, 301 Kan. 1041, 1043 , 350 P.3d 1068 (2015).

2024State v. Godfrey, 301 Kan. 1041, 1043 , 350 P.3d 1068 (2015).

2013App. 2d 297 , 26 P.3d 707 , rev. denied 272 Kan. 1422 (2001).” Stovall’s citation to Ryan was appropriate because Ryan contains language supporting Stovall’s request for automatic reversal upon a showing that defense counsel had a conflict of interest.

2010In Allen , the court reasoned that a challenge to the constitutional validity of prior convictions required that the court do more than merely “presume that all of the actions of the municipal court followed the law . . ., there must be a showing that the waiver was knowingly and intelligently made, and the attempted waiver must be strictly construed.” 28 Kan.

2004App. 2d 352, 355 , 595 P.2d 724 , rev. denied 226 Kan. 793 (1979), the Court of Appeals adopted the ultimate showing test to determine whether an insurer has a duty to defend.

2004The Williams court stated that “the plaintiff may not create an obligation on the part of the insurer where no obligation previously existed.” 3 Kan.

2004See Steinle, 265 Kan. at 555 ; Spivey, 254 Kan. at 250-51 ; Spruill, 212 Kan. at 686 .

2004See Steinle, 265 Kan. at 555 ; Spivey, 254 Kan. at 250-51 ; Spruill, 212 Kan. at 686 .

1992The foundation may not include any discussion regarding the accuracy with which HGN test results correlate to, or predict, a BAC of greater or less than .10%." 165 Ariz. at 519 .

1992The foundation may not include any discussion regarding the accuracy with which HGN test results correlate to, or predict, a BAC of greater or less than .10%.” 165 Ariz. at 519 .

1972In United States v. Saitta, 443 F. 2d 830 (CA5, 1971), the court, after announcing the rule that appropriate relief for violation of discovery orders lies within the sound discretion of the trial court, held that error in administering the discovery rules is not reversible absent a showing the error was prejudicial to the substantial rights of the defendant.

1937In Hope v. Bashor, 99 Kan. 804 , 163 Pac. 463 , it was said that— “In this state an injunction will not be granted against a judgment merely because it is void for want of a legal service of summons, without a showing that a claim is made in good faith that it is unjust as well as based upon an insufficient notice.” (p. 806.) In True v. Mendenhall, 67 Kan. 497 , 73 Pac. 67 , it was held that— “Equitable relief will not be granted against a justice’s judgment, void for want of jurisdiction of the person of the defendant, without a showing, or at least a bona fide claim, of the existence of a me

1937In Hope v. Bashor, 99 Kan. 804 , 163 Pac. 463 , it was said that— “In this state an injunction will not be granted against a judgment merely because it is void for want of a legal service of summons, without a showing that a claim is made in good faith that it is unjust as well as based upon an insufficient notice.” (p. 806.) In True v. Mendenhall, 67 Kan. 497 , 73 Pac. 67 , it was held that— “Equitable relief will not be granted against a justice’s judgment, void for want of jurisdiction of the person of the defendant, without a showing, or at least a bona fide claim, of the existence of a me

1937In Hope v. Bashor, 99 Kan. 804 , 163 Pac. 463 , it was said that— “In this state an injunction will not be granted against a judgment merely because it is void for want of a legal service of summons, without a showing that a claim is made in good faith that it is unjust as well as based upon an insufficient notice.” (p. 806.) In True v. Mendenhall, 67 Kan. 497 , 73 Pac. 67 , it was held that— “Equitable relief will not be granted against a justice’s judgment, void for want of jurisdiction of the person of the defendant, without a showing, or at least a bona fide claim, of the existence of a me

1937In Hope v. Bashor, 99 Kan. 804 , 163 Pac. 463 , it was said that— “In this state an injunction will not be granted against a judgment merely because it is void for want of a legal service of summons, without a showing that a claim is made in good faith that it is unjust as well as based upon an insufficient notice.” (p. 806.) In True v. Mendenhall, 67 Kan. 497 , 73 Pac. 67 , it was held that— “Equitable relief will not be granted against a justice’s judgment, void for want of jurisdiction of the person of the defendant, without a showing, or at least a bona fide claim, of the existence of a me

1937In Hope v. Bashor, 99 Kan. 804 , 163 Pac. 463 , it was said that— “In this state an injunction will not be granted against a judgment merely because it is void for want of a legal service of summons, without a showing that a claim is made in good faith that it is unjust as well as based upon an insufficient notice.” (p. 806.) In True v. Mendenhall, 67 Kan. 497 , 73 Pac. 67 , it was held that— “Equitable relief will not be granted against a justice’s judgment, void for want of jurisdiction of the person of the defendant, without a showing, or at least a bona fide claim, of the existence of a me

1937In Hope v. Bashor, 99 Kan. 804 , 163 Pac. 463 , it was said that— “In this state an injunction will not be granted against a judgment merely because it is void for want of a legal service of summons, without a showing that a claim is made in good faith that it is unjust as well as based upon an insufficient notice.” (p. 806.) In True v. Mendenhall, 67 Kan. 497 , 73 Pac. 67 , it was held that— “Equitable relief will not be granted against a justice’s judgment, void for want of jurisdiction of the person of the defendant, without a showing, or at least a bona fide claim, of the existence of a me

1937In Hope v. Bashor, 99 Kan. 804 , 163 Pac. 463 , it was said that— “In this state an injunction will not be granted against a judgment merely because it is void for want of a legal service of summons, without a showing that a claim is made in good faith that it is unjust as well as based upon an insufficient notice.” (p. 806.) In True v. Mendenhall, 67 Kan. 497 , 73 Pac. 67 , it was held that— “Equitable relief will not be granted against a justice’s judgment, void for want of jurisdiction of the person of the defendant, without a showing, or at least a bona fide claim, of the existence of a me

1937In Hope v. Bashor, 99 Kan. 804 , 163 Pac. 463 , it was said that— “In this state an injunction will not be granted against a judgment merely because it is void for want of a legal service of summons, without a showing that a claim is made in good faith that it is unjust as well as based upon an insufficient notice.” (p. 806.) In True v. Mendenhall, 67 Kan. 497 , 73 Pac. 67 , it was held that— “Equitable relief will not be granted against a justice’s judgment, void for want of jurisdiction of the person of the defendant, without a showing, or at least a bona fide claim, of the existence of a me

1937In Hope v. Bashor, 99 Kan. 804 , 163 Pac. 463 , it was said that— “In this state an injunction will not be granted against a judgment merely because it is void for want of a legal service of summons, without a showing that a claim is made in good faith that it is unjust as well as based upon an insufficient notice.” (p. 806.) In True v. Mendenhall, 67 Kan. 497 , 73 Pac. 67 , it was held that— “Equitable relief will not be granted against a justice’s judgment, void for want of jurisdiction of the person of the defendant, without a showing, or at least a bona fide claim, of the existence of a me

1937In Hope v. Bashor, 99 Kan. 804 , 163 Pac. 463 , it was said that— “In this state an injunction will not be granted against a judgment merely because it is void for want of a legal service of summons, without a showing that a claim is made in good faith that it is unjust as well as based upon an insufficient notice.” (p. 806.) In True v. Mendenhall, 67 Kan. 497 , 73 Pac. 67 , it was held that— “Equitable relief will not be granted against a justice’s judgment, void for want of jurisdiction of the person of the defendant, without a showing, or at least a bona fide claim, of the existence of a me

1937In Hope v. Bashor, 99 Kan. 804 , 163 Pac. 463 , it was said that— “In this state an injunction will not be granted against a judgment merely because it is void for want of a legal service of summons, without a showing that a claim is made in good faith that it is unjust as well as based upon an insufficient notice.” (p. 806.) In True v. Mendenhall, 67 Kan. 497 , 73 Pac. 67 , it was held that— “Equitable relief will not be granted against a justice’s judgment, void for want of jurisdiction of the person of the defendant, without a showing, or at least a bona fide claim, of the existence of a me

1937In Hope v. Bashor, 99 Kan. 804 , 163 Pac. 463 , it was said that— “In this state an injunction will not be granted against a judgment merely because it is void for want of a legal service of summons, without a showing that a claim is made in good faith that it is unjust as well as based upon an insufficient notice.” (p. 806.) In True v. Mendenhall, 67 Kan. 497 , 73 Pac. 67 , it was held that— “Equitable relief will not be granted against a justice’s judgment, void for want of jurisdiction of the person of the defendant, without a showing, or at least a bona fide claim, of the existence of a me

1936(See the many cases annotated under this section in our Revised Statutes and Supplement thereto.) Some of these cases show direct violations of statutes of a character practically impossible to show a bad effect (see particularly State v. Peterson, 102 Kan. 900 , 171 Pac. 1153 ; State v. Smith, 114 Kan. 186, 188 , 217 Pac. 307 ), yet, because of the lack of such a showing the violation was ignored.

1936(See the many cases annotated under this section in our Revised Statutes and Supplement thereto.) Some of these cases show direct violations of statutes of a character practically impossible to show a bad effect (see particularly State v. Peterson, 102 Kan. 900 , 171 Pac. 1153 ; State v. Smith, 114 Kan. 186, 188 , 217 Pac. 307 ), yet, because of the lack of such a showing the violation was ignored.

1936(See the many cases annotated under this section in our Revised Statutes and Supplement thereto.) Some of these cases show direct violations of statutes of a character practically impossible to show a bad effect (see particularly State v. Peterson, 102 Kan. 900 , 171 Pac. 1153 ; State v. Smith, 114 Kan. 186, 188 , 217 Pac. 307 ), yet, because of the lack of such a showing the violation was ignored.

1936(See the many cases annotated under this section in our Revised Statutes and Supplement thereto.) Some of these cases show direct violations of statutes of a character practically impossible to show a bad effect (see particularly State v. Peterson, 102 Kan. 900 , 171 Pac. 1153 ; State v. Smith, 114 Kan. 186, 188 , 217 Pac. 307 ), yet, because of the lack of such a showing the violation was ignored.

1914We think the case comes within the doctrine of Dent v. Simpson, 81 Kan. 217, 221 , 105 Pac. 542 , a survey case where the main issue was the location of the original stone marking the government corner.

1914We think the case comes within the doctrine of Dent v. Simpson, 81 Kan. 217, 221 , 105 Pac. 542 , a survey case where the main issue was the location of the original stone marking the government corner.

1905(Brust v. Green, 32 Kan. 182 , 4 Pac. 81 ; Winter v. Shutter, 42 id. 544, 546 , 22 Pac. 564 .) The judgment of the district court is reversed.