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.
11 Kansas opinions name it 2 courts 2010–2024 5 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 |
|---|---|---|
Allen v. Kansas Department of Social & Rehabilitation Servicesgreen2 sentences2017Further, ‘[t]he mere application of any judgment is not the hallmark of the exception.’ Soto, *456 291 Kan. at 79 (citing Allen v. Kansas Dept. of SRS, 240 Kan. 620, 623 , 731 P.2d 314 [1987]). 2017Further, ‘[t]he mere application of any judgment is not the hallmark of the exception.’ Soto, *456 291 Kan. at 79 (citing Allen v. Kansas Dept. of SRS, 240 Kan. 620, 623 , 731 P.2d 314 [1987]). | 2 | 4 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Kansas. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Soto v. City of Bonner Springs
green
2 sentences2024"The mere application of any judgment is not the hallmark of the exception." Soto v. City of Bonner Springs, 291 Kan. 73, 79 , 238 P.3d 278 (2010). 2024"The mere application of any judgment is not the hallmark of the exception." Soto v. City of Bonner Springs, 291 Kan. 73, 79 , 238 P.3d 278 (2010). | 6 | 2011–2024 |
Thomas v. COUNTY COM'RS OF SHAWNEE COUNTY
green
2 sentences2024Rather, "'[t]he more a judgment involves the making of policy[,] the more it is of a "nature and quality" to be recognized as inappropriate for judicial review.'" Thomas v. Board of Shawnee County Comm'rs, 293 Kan. 208, 234 , 262 P.3d 336 (2011) (quoting Kansas State Bank & Trust Co. v. Specialized Transp. 2022There, we observed that "'[t]he mere application of any judgment is not the hallmark of the exception.'" 293 Kan. at 234 (quoting Soto, 291 Kan. at 79 ). | 3 | 2022–2024 |
Lyon v. Kansas City Fire & Marine Insurance
neutral
2 sentences2021Co., 176 Kan. 411, 414 , 271 P.2d 291 [1954]). 2021Co., 176 Kan. 411, 414 , 271 P.2d 291 [1954]). | 1 | 2021–2021 |
Heckler v. Community Health Services of Crawford County, Inc.
green
2 sentences2017Moreover, "a hallmark of the doctrine is its flexible application[.]" Heckler v. Community Health Services of Crawford County, Inc., 467 U.S. 51, 59 , 104 S. Ct. 2218 , 81 L. 2017Moreover, "a hallmark of the doctrine is its flexible application[.]" Heckler v. Community Health Services of Crawford County, Inc., 467 U.S. 51, 59 , 104 S. Ct. 2218 , 81 L. | 1 | 2017–2017 |
Nero v. Kansas State University
green
2 sentences2010See Allen v. Kansas Dept. of S.R.S., 240 Kan. 620, 623 , 731 P.2d 314 (1987) (whether employee used wet or dry mop or plain water or detergent in cleanup of vomit on floor is ministerial because these choices do not involve any particular skill or training; discretionary function exception does not apply). *80 We have consistently recognized that where there is a “clearly defined mandatory duty or guideline, the discretionary function exception is not applicable.” Nero v. Kansas State University, 253 Kan. 567, 585 , 861 P.2d 768 (1993); see Barrett v. U.S.D. 2010See Allen v. Kansas Dept. of S.R.S., 240 Kan. 620, 623 , 731 P.2d 314 (1987) (whether employee used wet or dry mop or plain water or detergent in cleanup of vomit on floor is ministerial because these choices do not involve any particular skill or training; discretionary function exception does not apply). *80 We have consistently recognized that where there is a “clearly defined mandatory duty or guideline, the discretionary function exception is not applicable.” Nero v. Kansas State University, 253 Kan. 567, 585 , 861 P.2d 768 (1993); see Barrett v. U.S.D. | 1 | 2010–2010 |
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.