10 Kansas opinions name it 2 courts 1992–2012 0 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 |
|---|---|---|
Critchfield Physical Therapy v. Taranto Group, Inc.green1 sentence2012The court determined the district court had engaged in a rigorous analysis of the certification factors “without conducting a trial within a trial to determine the relationship of each potential class member with the defendant.” 293 Kan. at 295. | 1 | 1 |
Lampkin v. ggH, Inc.green1 sentence2011The only issue at the certification hearing is whether the case is one that would benefit from the procedural classification as a class action. [Citation omitted.] While affirmative defenses should be considered in determining the merits of maintaining the lawsuit as a class action, the fact that some plaintiffs may offer a defense does not prohibit certification of a class. [Citation omitted.] Also, if the trial court determines that a defense is available to individual members such that maintenance of the class is no longer feasible, the class can be decertified.” The court in Lampkin v. GGH | 1 | 1 |
Schulz v. Kansas Department of Revenuegreen2 sentences2001This court agreed. 19 Kan. 2001See 19 Kan. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Kansas. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Standish v. Department of Revenue
green
2 sentences2010At the district court hearing, both parties argued that the factors governing a rescission of a test refusal set forth in Standish v. Department of Revenue, 235 Kan. 900 , 683 P.2d 1276 (1984), were controlling. 2010At the district court hearing, both parties argued that the factors governing a rescission of a test refusal set forth in Standish v. Department of Revenue, 235 Kan. 900 , 683 P.2d 1276 (1984), were controlling. | 2 | 2010–2010 |
State v. Jones
green
1 sentence2010The court stated that Apprendi deals with the sentencing phase of criminal proceedings, while the certification hearing to determine a juvenile offender’s status as an adult or a juvenile is merely a “jurisdictional matter” meant to determine which court will resolve the case. 273 Kan. at 775 . | 1 | 2010–2010 |
The Money Place, LLC v. Barnes
green
1 sentence2006However, the Arkansas statute included a specific provision not found in the Kansas statute that “ ‘findings of fact and conclusions of law are unnecessary on decisions of motions under these Rules,’ ” and the Arkansas court did not require that the district court engage in a “ ‘rigorous analysis’ ” of the certification factors. 349 Ark. at 524-25 . | 1 | 2006–2006 |
Consolidated Edison Company Of New York, Inc. v. Bill Richardson
green
1 sentence2006However, in Consolidated Edison Co. v. Richardson, 233 F.3d 1376 (Fed. | 1 | 2006–2006 |
Linenberger v. Kansas Department of Revenue
green
2 sentences2006With Schulz controlling the question whether the issue could be raised on judicial review, Linenberger argued that failure to comply with the certification requirement deprived KDR of subject matter jurisdiction. 28 Kan. 2006The Court of Appeals rejected the argument: “Neither Anderson nor Schulz stands for the proposition that failure to comply with the certification requirement of K.S.A. 1997 Supp. 8-1002(e) denies KDR subject matter jurisdiction to conduct an administrative hearing regarding suspension of a driver’s license.” 28 Kan. | 1 | 2006–2006 |
Anderson v. Kansas Department of Revenue
green
1 sentence2001He cites to Anderson v. Kansas Dept. of Revenue, 18 Kan. | 1 | 2001–2001 |
State v. Lieurance
green
1 sentence1993Likewise, the certification of the test solution itself and the procedure for adding it to the machine were subjects of the deputy’s testimony, within his range of knowledge, and presented substantial competent evidence for the trial court to rely on.” 14 Kan. | 1 | 1993–1993 |
Business Guides, Inc. v. Chromatic Communications Enterprises, Inc.
green
2 sentences1992The United States Supreme Court interpreted the new Rule 11 in Business Guides v. Chromatic Comm. Enterprises, 498 U.S. 533 , 112 L. 1992The United States Supreme Court interpreted the new Rule 11 in Business Guides v. Chromatic Comm. Enterprises, 498 U.S. 533 , 112 L. | 1 | 1992–1992 |
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.