typographical error in Kansas

2019The Supreme Court held it had jurisdiction to consider Wilkins' argument, finding that the notice of appeal " 'should not be overly technical or detailed,' " did not prejudice the State, and encompassed the substantive trial issues Wilkins raised in his brief on appeal. 269 Kan. at 270 , 7 P.3d 252 . *1167 Recently in State v. Rocheleau , 307 Kan. 761 , 763, 415 P.3d 422 (2018), the Kansas Supreme Court considered whether Rocheleau's notice of appeal was "fatally flawed" when it only stated he was appealing his sentence but in his brief argued that his lifetime registration requirement under t

2019The Supreme Court held it had jurisdiction to consider Wilkins' argument, finding that the notice of appeal " 'should not be overly technical or detailed,' " did not prejudice the State, and encompassed the substantive trial issues Wilkins raised in his brief on appeal. 269 Kan. at 270 , 7 P.3d 252 . *1167 Recently in State v. Rocheleau , 307 Kan. 761 , 763, 415 P.3d 422 (2018), the Kansas Supreme Court considered whether Rocheleau's notice of appeal was "fatally flawed" when it only stated he was appealing his sentence but in his brief argued that his lifetime registration requirement under t

2014The State cites our recent State v. Berreth, 294 Kan. 98 , 273 P.3d 752 (2012), opinion and argues that we now apply a more exacting analysis to an appellant’s notice of appeal.

2014The State cites our recent State v. Berreth, 294 Kan. 98 , 273 P.3d 752 (2012), opinion and argues that we now apply a more exacting analysis to an appellant’s notice of appeal.

2014Then, in State v. Coman, 294 Kan. 84, 90 , 273 P.3d 701 (2012), the court ruled there is a jurisdictional aspect to the notice of appeal: “ ‘It is a fundamental proposition of Kansas appellate procedure that an appellate court obtains jurisdiction over tire rulings identified in the notice of appeal.’ [Citations omitted.]” But Coman went on to state that the words of the notice of appeal will not be stretched beyond their normal meanings: “Although our appellate courts have, at times, liberally construed a notice of appeal to retain jurisdiction, one simply cannot construe a notice that appell

2014Then, in State v. Coman, 294 Kan. 84, 90 , 273 P.3d 701 (2012), the court ruled there is a jurisdictional aspect to the notice of appeal: “ ‘It is a fundamental proposition of Kansas appellate procedure that an appellate court obtains jurisdiction over tire rulings identified in the notice of appeal.’ [Citations omitted.]” But Coman went on to state that the words of the notice of appeal will not be stretched beyond their normal meanings: “Although our appellate courts have, at times, liberally construed a notice of appeal to retain jurisdiction, one simply cannot construe a notice that appell

2006"Errors plainly clerical in character, mere inadvertences of terminology, and other similar inaccuracies and deficiencies will be disregarded or corrected where the intention of the legislature is plain and unmistakable." Kenyon v. Kansas Power Light Co., 254 Kan. 287 , 292-93 (1993), quoting Harris v. Shanahan, 192 Kan. 183 , 196 (1963).

2006"Errors plainly clerical in character, mere inadvertences of terminology, and other similar inaccuracies and deficiencies will be disregarded or corrected where the intention of the legislature is plain and unmistakable." Kenyon v. Kansas Power Light Co., 254 Kan. 287 , 292-93 (1993), quoting Harris v. Shanahan, 192 Kan. 183 , 196 (1963).

2004As a result, American was entitled to payment. 610 F. Supp. at 202 .

2001In State v. Wright, 221 Kan. 132 , 557 P.2d 1267 (1976), Wright complained of a typographical error in the information.

2001In State v. Wright, 221 Kan. 132 , 557 P.2d 1267 (1976), Wright complained of a typographical error in the information.

2001The case of State v. Christiansen, 258 Kan. 465 , 904 P.2d 968 (1995), is instructive.

2001The case of State v. Christiansen, 258 Kan. 465 , 904 P.2d 968 (1995), is instructive.

2000Co. v. Kansas Corporation Commission, 6 Kan.

1996See also In re Estate of Shaffer, 203 Kan. 264 , Syl. ¶ 2, 454 P.2d 1 (1969) (petition which lacks verification as required by statute may be remedied by amendment); Lumber Co. v. Collinson, 97 Kan. 791 , 156 Pac. 724 (1916) (amendment permissible to correct misnomer in pleadings); Butcher v. Bank of Brownsville, 2 Kan. 70, 79 (1863) (district court did not err in allowing plaintiff to amend pleading to add word “petition” after title of case, as required by code); Architectural & Engineered Products Co. v. Whitehead, 19 Kan.

1996See also In re Estate of Shaffer, 203 Kan. 264 , Syl. ¶ 2, 454 P.2d 1 (1969) (petition which lacks verification as required by statute may be remedied by amendment); Lumber Co. v. Collinson, 97 Kan. 791 , 156 Pac. 724 (1916) (amendment permissible to correct misnomer in pleadings); Butcher v. Bank of Brownsville, 2 Kan. 70, 79 (1863) (district court did not err in allowing plaintiff to amend pleading to add word “petition” after title of case, as required by code); Architectural & Engineered Products Co. v. Whitehead, 19 Kan.

1996App. 2d 236 , 577 P. 2d 827 (1978), the court addressed the effect of a typographical error on a lien under 60-2202.

1985The trial court followed Trapani v. Universal Credit Co., 151 Kan. 715 , 100 P.2d 735 (1940), wherein it was held that transposed digits in the motor number did not impart constructive notice, and held in the instant case that a typographical error by which an extra digit was added to a 17-character identification number rendered an otherwise valid security agreement invalid.

1985The trial court followed Trapani v. Universal Credit Co., 151 Kan. 715 , 100 P.2d 735 (1940), wherein it was held that transposed digits in the motor number did not impart constructive notice, and held in the instant case that a typographical error by which an extra digit was added to a 17-character identification number rendered an otherwise valid security agreement invalid.

1960(Converse v. Hand, 185 Kan. 112, 115, 116 , 340 P. 2d 874 ; Tafarella v. Hand, 185 Kan. 613, 617, 618 , 347 P. 2d 356 , cert. denied, 363 U. S. 807 , 80 S. Ct. 1243 , 4 L. ed. 2d 1150.) Petitioner’s contention with respect to this point is entirely without merit and is not sustained.

1904(Bankers’ Union v. Crawford, 67 Kan. 449 , 73 Pac. 79 .) Plaintiff in error contends that for this reason the judgment should be reversed.

1904(Bankers’ Union v. Crawford, 67 Kan. 449 , 73 Pac. 79 .) Plaintiff in error contends that for this reason the judgment should be reversed.