appellant contends error in Kansas

1977S. A. 22-3201[4]; State v. Rives, 220 Kan. 141, 144-145 , 551 P. 2d 788 ; and State v. Osburn, 216 Kan. 638, 640-641 , 533 P. 2d 1229 , and authorities cited therein.) Second, the appellant contends it was error for the court to give jury instruction No. 2(3) which stated an element of the crime charged in the disjunctive.

1977S. A. 22-3201[4]; State v. Rives, 220 Kan. 141, 144-145 , 551 P. 2d 788 ; and State v. Osburn, 216 Kan. 638, 640-641 , 533 P. 2d 1229 , and authorities cited therein.) Second, the appellant contends it was error for the court to give jury instruction No. 2(3) which stated an element of the crime charged in the disjunctive.

1977S. A. 22-3201[4]; State v. Rives, 220 Kan. 141, 144-145 , 551 P. 2d 788 ; and State v. Osburn, 216 Kan. 638, 640-641 , 533 P. 2d 1229 , and authorities cited therein.) Second, the appellant contends it was error for the court to give jury instruction No. 2(3) which stated an element of the crime charged in the disjunctive.

1977S. A. 22-3201[4]; State v. Rives, 220 Kan. 141, 144-145 , 551 P. 2d 788 ; and State v. Osburn, 216 Kan. 638, 640-641 , 533 P. 2d 1229 , and authorities cited therein.) Second, the appellant contends it was error for the court to give jury instruction No. 2(3) which stated an element of the crime charged in the disjunctive.

1976In ruling on a motion for a directed verdict pursuant to K.S.A. 60-250, the court is required to resolve all facts and inferences reasonably to be drawn from the evidence in favor of the party against whom the ruling is sought, and where the evidence is such that reasonable minds could reach different conclusions thereon, the motion must be denied and the matter submitted to the jury. ( Tos v. Handle, 209 Kan. 139 , 495 P.2d 896 ; and Fox v. Massey-Ferguson, Inc., 206 Kan. 97 , 476 P.2d 646 .) The same basic rule governs appellate review of a motion for a directed verdict. ( Apperson v. Securi

1976In ruling on a motion for a directed verdict pursuant to K.S.A. 60-250, the court is required to resolve all facts and inferences reasonably to be drawn from the evidence in favor of the party against whom the ruling is sought, and where the evidence is such that reasonable minds could reach different conclusions thereon, the motion must be denied and the matter submitted to the jury. ( Tos v. Handle, 209 Kan. 139 , 495 P.2d 896 ; and Fox v. Massey-Ferguson, Inc., 206 Kan. 97 , 476 P.2d 646 .) The same basic rule governs appellate review of a motion for a directed verdict. ( Apperson v. Securi

1976In ruling on a motion for a directed verdict pursuant to K.S.A. 60-250, the court is required to resolve all facts and inferences reasonably to be drawn from the evidence in favor of the party against whom the ruling is sought, and where the evidence is such that reasonable minds could reach different conclusions thereon, the motion must be denied and the matter submitted to the jury. ( Tos v. Handle, 209 Kan. 139 , 495 P.2d 896 ; and Fox v. Massey-Ferguson, Inc., 206 Kan. 97 , 476 P.2d 646 .) The same basic rule governs appellate review of a motion for a directed verdict. ( Apperson v. Securi

1976In ruling on a motion for a directed verdict pursuant to K.S.A. 60-250, the court is required to resolve all facts and inferences reasonably to be drawn from the evidence in favor of the party against whom the ruling is sought, and where the evidence is such that reasonable minds could reach different conclusions thereon, the motion must be denied and the matter submitted to the jury. ( Tos v. Handle, 209 Kan. 139 , 495 P.2d 896 ; and Fox v. Massey-Ferguson, Inc., 206 Kan. 97 , 476 P.2d 646 .) The same basic rule governs appellate review of a motion for a directed verdict. ( Apperson v. Securi

1976In ruling on a motion for a directed verdict pursuant to K.S.A. 60-250, the court is required to resolve all facts and inferences reasonably to be drawn from the evidence in favor of the party against whom the ruling is sought, and where the evidence is such that reasonable minds could reach different conclusions thereon, the motion must be denied and the matter submitted to the jury. ( Tos v. Handle, 209 Kan. 139 , 495 P.2d 896 ; and Fox v. Massey-Ferguson, Inc., 206 Kan. 97 , 476 P.2d 646 .) The same basic rule governs appellate review of a motion for a directed verdict. ( Apperson v. Securi

1976In ruling on a motion for a directed verdict pursuant to K.S.A. 60-250, the court is required to resolve all facts and inferences reasonably to be drawn from the evidence in favor of the party against whom the ruling is sought, and where the evidence is such that reasonable minds could reach different conclusions thereon, the motion must be denied and the matter submitted to the jury. ( Tos v. Handle, 209 Kan. 139 , 495 P.2d 896 ; and Fox v. Massey-Ferguson, Inc., 206 Kan. 97 , 476 P.2d 646 .) The same basic rule governs appellate review of a motion for a directed verdict. ( Apperson v. Securi

1976In ruling on a motion for a directed verdict pursuant to K.S.A. 60-250, the court is required to resolve all facts and inferences reasonably to be drawn from the evidence in favor of the party against whom the ruling is sought, and where the evidence is such that reasonable minds could reach different conclusions thereon, the motion must be denied and the matter submitted to the jury. ( Tos v. Handle, 209 Kan. 139 , 495 P.2d 896 ; and Fox v. Massey-Ferguson, Inc., 206 Kan. 97 , 476 P.2d 646 .) The same basic rule governs appellate review of a motion for a directed verdict. ( Apperson v. Securi

1976In ruling on a motion for a directed verdict pursuant to K.S.A. 60-250, the court is required to resolve all facts and inferences reasonably to be drawn from the evidence in favor of the party against whom the ruling is sought, and where the evidence is such that reasonable minds could reach different conclusions thereon, the motion must be denied and the matter submitted to the jury. ( Tos v. Handle, 209 Kan. 139 , 495 P.2d 896 ; and Fox v. Massey-Ferguson, Inc., 206 Kan. 97 , 476 P.2d 646 .) The same basic rule governs appellate review of a motion for a directed verdict. ( Apperson v. Securi

1976In ruling on a motion for a directed verdict pursuant to K.S.A. 60-250, the court is required to resolve all facts and inferences reasonably to be drawn from the evidence in favor of the party against whom the ruling is sought, and where the evidence is such that reasonable minds could reach different conclusions thereon, the motion must be denied and the matter submitted to the jury. ( Tos v. Handle, 209 Kan. 139 , 495 P.2d 896 ; and Fox v. Massey-Ferguson, Inc., 206 Kan. 97 , 476 P.2d 646 .) The same basic rule governs appellate review of a motion for a directed verdict. ( Apperson v. Securi

1976In ruling on a motion for a directed verdict pursuant to K.S.A. 60-250, the court is required to resolve all facts and inferences reasonably to be drawn from the evidence in favor of the party against whom the ruling is sought, and where the evidence is such that reasonable minds could reach different conclusions thereon, the motion must be denied and the matter submitted to the jury. ( Tos v. Handle, 209 Kan. 139 , 495 P.2d 896 ; and Fox v. Massey-Ferguson, Inc., 206 Kan. 97 , 476 P.2d 646 .) The same basic rule governs appellate review of a motion for a directed verdict. ( Apperson v. Securi

1976(See, McGehee v. Schiffman, 4 Cal. App. 50 , 87 Pac. 290 [1906].) The appellant contends it was error for the trial court to overrule her motion for a directed verdict on the issue of negligence on the part of the defendant — that the defendant's admissions of negligence are binding upon him.

1976(See, McGehee v. Schiffman, 4 Cal. App. 50 , 87 Pac. 290 [1906].) The appellant contends it was error for the trial court to overrule her motion for a directed verdict on the issue of negligence on the part of the defendant — that the defendant's admissions of negligence are binding upon him.

1973The appellant contends the doctrine of laches cannot be invoked in support cases and cites Peters v. Weber, 175 Kan. 838 , 267 P. 2d 481 and Effland v. Effland, 171 Kan. 657 , 237 P. 2d 380 .

1973The appellant contends the doctrine of laches cannot be invoked in support cases and cites Peters v. Weber, 175 Kan. 838 , 267 P. 2d 481 and Effland v. Effland, 171 Kan. 657 , 237 P. 2d 380 .

1973The appellant contends the doctrine of laches cannot be invoked in support cases and cites Peters v. Weber, 175 Kan. 838 , 267 P. 2d 481 and Effland v. Effland, 171 Kan. 657 , 237 P. 2d 380 .

1973The appellant contends the doctrine of laches cannot be invoked in support cases and cites Peters v. Weber, 175 Kan. 838 , 267 P. 2d 481 and Effland v. Effland, 171 Kan. 657 , 237 P. 2d 380 .

1972(Jocich v. Greyhound Cab Co., 188 Kan. 268 , 362 P. 2d 27 ; American Fence Co. v. Gestes, 190 Kan. 393 , 375 P. 2d 775 ; and Blackburn v. Colvin, 191 Kan. 239 , 380 P. 2d 432 .) Lastly the appellant contends it was error to admit evidence concerning the revocation by the State Board of Healing Arts of his license to practice chiropractic through the testimony of Frederick E.

1972(Jocich v. Greyhound Cab Co., 188 Kan. 268 , 362 P. 2d 27 ; American Fence Co. v. Gestes, 190 Kan. 393 , 375 P. 2d 775 ; and Blackburn v. Colvin, 191 Kan. 239 , 380 P. 2d 432 .) Lastly the appellant contends it was error to admit evidence concerning the revocation by the State Board of Healing Arts of his license to practice chiropractic through the testimony of Frederick E.

1972In State v. Sharp, 174 Kan. 672, 675 , 258 P. 2d 306 , the court said: “. . . the words recent’ and ‘exclusive’ are relative terms, and the contention for a literal application of their definitions cannot be sustained. . . .” In the instant case the burglary was shown to have occurred on the night of January 29, or the early morning of January 30.

1972In State v. Sharp, 174 Kan. 672, 675 , 258 P. 2d 306 , the court said: “. . . the words recent’ and ‘exclusive’ are relative terms, and the contention for a literal application of their definitions cannot be sustained. . . .” In the instant case the burglary was shown to have occurred on the night of January 29, or the early morning of January 30.

1972(Jocich v. Greyhound Cab Co., 188 Kan. 268 , 362 P. 2d 27 ; American Fence Co. v. Gestes, 190 Kan. 393 , 375 P. 2d 775 ; and Blackburn v. Colvin, 191 Kan. 239 , 380 P. 2d 432 .) Lastly the appellant contends it was error to admit evidence concerning the revocation by the State Board of Healing Arts of his license to practice chiropractic through the testimony of Frederick E.

1972(Jocich v. Greyhound Cab Co., 188 Kan. 268 , 362 P. 2d 27 ; American Fence Co. v. Gestes, 190 Kan. 393 , 375 P. 2d 775 ; and Blackburn v. Colvin, 191 Kan. 239 , 380 P. 2d 432 .) Lastly the appellant contends it was error to admit evidence concerning the revocation by the State Board of Healing Arts of his license to practice chiropractic through the testimony of Frederick E.

1972(Jocich v. Greyhound Cab Co., 188 Kan. 268 , 362 P. 2d 27 ; American Fence Co. v. Gestes, 190 Kan. 393 , 375 P. 2d 775 ; and Blackburn v. Colvin, 191 Kan. 239 , 380 P. 2d 432 .) Lastly the appellant contends it was error to admit evidence concerning the revocation by the State Board of Healing Arts of his license to practice chiropractic through the testimony of Frederick E.

1972(Jocich v. Greyhound Cab Co., 188 Kan. 268 , 362 P. 2d 27 ; American Fence Co. v. Gestes, 190 Kan. 393 , 375 P. 2d 775 ; and Blackburn v. Colvin, 191 Kan. 239 , 380 P. 2d 432 .) Lastly the appellant contends it was error to admit evidence concerning the revocation by the State Board of Healing Arts of his license to practice chiropractic through the testimony of Frederick E.

1968The instruction is compared with that given in State v. Shannon, 194 Kan. 258 , 398 P. 2d 344 , cert. den. 382 U. S. 881 , 15 L.

1968The instruction is compared with that given in State v. Shannon, 194 Kan. 258 , 398 P. 2d 344 , cert. den. 382 U. S. 881 , 15 L.

1968The instruction is compared with that given in State v. Shannon, 194 Kan. 258 , 398 P. 2d 344 , cert. den. 382 U. S. 881 , 15 L.

1966Relying upon State v. Winchester, 166 Kan. 512 , 203 P. 2d 229 , the appellant argues that this action on the part of the trial court was prejudicial to his substantial rights.

1966Relying upon State v. Winchester, 166 Kan. 512 , 203 P. 2d 229 , the appellant argues that this action on the part of the trial court was prejudicial to his substantial rights.

1932The instruction is as follows: “You are instructed that where a person is found dead or killed through, by and on account of the negligence of another the law presumes, if there was no eyewitness to the casualty, that such person so found dead or killed had exercised due care for his own protection.” This instruction is not in accordance with the rule laid down by this court in the case of Jones v. Railway Co., 91 Kan. 282 , 137 Pac. 796 .

1932The instruction is as follows: “You are instructed that where a person is found dead or killed through, by and on account of the negligence of another the law presumes, if there was no eyewitness to the casualty, that such person so found dead or killed had exercised due care for his own protection.” This instruction is not in accordance with the rule laid down by this court in the case of Jones v. Railway Co., 91 Kan. 282 , 137 Pac. 796 .

1913A conflict of authority with regard to the admissibility of such evidence is noted in Plowman v. Nicholson, 81 Kan. 210, 215, 216 , 105 Pac. 692 , 106 Pac. 279 , where citations are made.