light rule in Kansas

1989The entire record must be examined in the light of the test adopted in Crawford and Pioneer: “The essential test to be applied is whether or not the operation of the portion of the business within the state is dependent upon or contributory to the operation of the business outside the state.” Pioneer, 235 Kan. 745 , Syl. ¶ 4.

1980But, however that may be and with the benefit of hindsight bolstered by time-consuming review of the trial testimony made in the light of instruction No. 2 and the definition of lewd fondling and touching expressed in State v. Wells, 223 Kan. at 97-98 , we conclude failure to instruct on attempt did not constitute reversible error in this case.

1974(Robertson v. McCune, 205 Kan. 696 , 472 P. 2d 215 ; and Price, Administrator v. Holmes, 198 Kan. 100 , 422 P. 2d 976 .) An examination of plaintiff’s petition in the light of the rule quoted reveals no allegations of an express contract nor of facts from which a contract might be implied that could be construed as a contract for a definite period of employment.

1974(Robertson v. McCune, 205 Kan. 696 , 472 P. 2d 215 ; and Price, Administrator v. Holmes, 198 Kan. 100 , 422 P. 2d 976 .) An examination of plaintiff’s petition in the light of the rule quoted reveals no allegations of an express contract nor of facts from which a contract might be implied that could be construed as a contract for a definite period of employment.

1974(Robertson v. McCune, 205 Kan. 696 , 472 P. 2d 215 ; and Price, Administrator v. Holmes, 198 Kan. 100 , 422 P. 2d 976 .) An examination of plaintiff’s petition in the light of the rule quoted reveals no allegations of an express contract nor of facts from which a contract might be implied that could be construed as a contract for a definite period of employment.

1974(Robertson v. McCune, 205 Kan. 696 , 472 P. 2d 215 ; and Price, Administrator v. Holmes, 198 Kan. 100 , 422 P. 2d 976 .) An examination of plaintiff’s petition in the light of the rule quoted reveals no allegations of an express contract nor of facts from which a contract might be implied that could be construed as a contract for a definite period of employment.

1956For a few of our more recent decisions where this rule is discussed, applied and adhered to see In re Estate of Johnson, 176 Kan. 339 , 270 P. 2d 293 ; In re Estate of Davis, 175 Kan. 107, 110 , 259 P. 2d 211 ; In re Estate of Jones, 174 Kan. 506, 514 , 257 P. 2d 116 ; In re Estate of Johannes, 173 Kan. 298 , 245 P. 2d 979 ; Shotzman v. Ward, 172 Kan. 272, 279 , 239 P. 2d 935 ; Bradbury v. Wise, 167 Kan. 737 , 208 P. 2d 209 .

1956For a few of our more recent decisions where this rule is discussed, applied and adhered to see In re Estate of Johnson, 176 Kan. 339 , 270 P. 2d 293 ; In re Estate of Davis, 175 Kan. 107, 110 , 259 P. 2d 211 ; In re Estate of Jones, 174 Kan. 506, 514 , 257 P. 2d 116 ; In re Estate of Johannes, 173 Kan. 298 , 245 P. 2d 979 ; Shotzman v. Ward, 172 Kan. 272, 279 , 239 P. 2d 935 ; Bradbury v. Wise, 167 Kan. 737 , 208 P. 2d 209 .

1956For a few of our more recent decisions where this rule is discussed, applied and adhered to see In re Estate of Johnson, 176 Kan. 339 , 270 P. 2d 293 ; In re Estate of Davis, 175 Kan. 107, 110 , 259 P. 2d 211 ; In re Estate of Jones, 174 Kan. 506, 514 , 257 P. 2d 116 ; In re Estate of Johannes, 173 Kan. 298 , 245 P. 2d 979 ; Shotzman v. Ward, 172 Kan. 272, 279 , 239 P. 2d 935 ; Bradbury v. Wise, 167 Kan. 737 , 208 P. 2d 209 .

1956For a few of our more recent decisions where this rule is discussed, applied and adhered to see In re Estate of Johnson, 176 Kan. 339 , 270 P. 2d 293 ; In re Estate of Davis, 175 Kan. 107, 110 , 259 P. 2d 211 ; In re Estate of Jones, 174 Kan. 506, 514 , 257 P. 2d 116 ; In re Estate of Johannes, 173 Kan. 298 , 245 P. 2d 979 ; Shotzman v. Ward, 172 Kan. 272, 279 , 239 P. 2d 935 ; Bradbury v. Wise, 167 Kan. 737 , 208 P. 2d 209 .

1956For a few of our more recent decisions where this rule is discussed, applied and adhered to see In re Estate of Johnson, 176 Kan. 339 , 270 P. 2d 293 ; In re Estate of Davis, 175 Kan. 107, 110 , 259 P. 2d 211 ; In re Estate of Jones, 174 Kan. 506, 514 , 257 P. 2d 116 ; In re Estate of Johannes, 173 Kan. 298 , 245 P. 2d 979 ; Shotzman v. Ward, 172 Kan. 272, 279 , 239 P. 2d 935 ; Bradbury v. Wise, 167 Kan. 737 , 208 P. 2d 209 .

1956For a few of our more recent decisions where this rule is discussed, applied and adhered to see In re Estate of Johnson, 176 Kan. 339 , 270 P. 2d 293 ; In re Estate of Davis, 175 Kan. 107, 110 , 259 P. 2d 211 ; In re Estate of Jones, 174 Kan. 506, 514 , 257 P. 2d 116 ; In re Estate of Johannes, 173 Kan. 298 , 245 P. 2d 979 ; Shotzman v. Ward, 172 Kan. 272, 279 , 239 P. 2d 935 ; Bradbury v. Wise, 167 Kan. 737 , 208 P. 2d 209 .

1956For a few of our more recent decisions where this rule is discussed, applied and adhered to see In re Estate of Johnson, 176 Kan. 339 , 270 P. 2d 293 ; In re Estate of Davis, 175 Kan. 107, 110 , 259 P. 2d 211 ; In re Estate of Jones, 174 Kan. 506, 514 , 257 P. 2d 116 ; In re Estate of Johannes, 173 Kan. 298 , 245 P. 2d 979 ; Shotzman v. Ward, 172 Kan. 272, 279 , 239 P. 2d 935 ; Bradbury v. Wise, 167 Kan. 737 , 208 P. 2d 209 .

1956For a few of our more recent decisions where this rule is discussed, applied and adhered to see In re Estate of Johnson, 176 Kan. 339 , 270 P. 2d 293 ; In re Estate of Davis, 175 Kan. 107, 110 , 259 P. 2d 211 ; In re Estate of Jones, 174 Kan. 506, 514 , 257 P. 2d 116 ; In re Estate of Johannes, 173 Kan. 298 , 245 P. 2d 979 ; Shotzman v. Ward, 172 Kan. 272, 279 , 239 P. 2d 935 ; Bradbury v. Wise, 167 Kan. 737 , 208 P. 2d 209 .

1956For a few of our more recent decisions where this rule is discussed, applied and adhered to see In re Estate of Johnson, 176 Kan. 339 , 270 P. 2d 293 ; In re Estate of Davis, 175 Kan. 107, 110 , 259 P. 2d 211 ; In re Estate of Jones, 174 Kan. 506, 514 , 257 P. 2d 116 ; In re Estate of Johannes, 173 Kan. 298 , 245 P. 2d 979 ; Shotzman v. Ward, 172 Kan. 272, 279 , 239 P. 2d 935 ; Bradbury v. Wise, 167 Kan. 737 , 208 P. 2d 209 .

1956For a few of our more recent decisions where this rule is discussed, applied and adhered to see In re Estate of Johnson, 176 Kan. 339 , 270 P. 2d 293 ; In re Estate of Davis, 175 Kan. 107, 110 , 259 P. 2d 211 ; In re Estate of Jones, 174 Kan. 506, 514 , 257 P. 2d 116 ; In re Estate of Johannes, 173 Kan. 298 , 245 P. 2d 979 ; Shotzman v. Ward, 172 Kan. 272, 279 , 239 P. 2d 935 ; Bradbury v. Wise, 167 Kan. 737 , 208 P. 2d 209 .

1956For a few of our more recent decisions where this rule is discussed, applied and adhered to see In re Estate of Johnson, 176 Kan. 339 , 270 P. 2d 293 ; In re Estate of Davis, 175 Kan. 107, 110 , 259 P. 2d 211 ; In re Estate of Jones, 174 Kan. 506, 514 , 257 P. 2d 116 ; In re Estate of Johannes, 173 Kan. 298 , 245 P. 2d 979 ; Shotzman v. Ward, 172 Kan. 272, 279 , 239 P. 2d 935 ; Bradbury v. Wise, 167 Kan. 737 , 208 P. 2d 209 .

1956For a few of our more recent decisions where this rule is discussed, applied and adhered to see In re Estate of Johnson, 176 Kan. 339 , 270 P. 2d 293 ; In re Estate of Davis, 175 Kan. 107, 110 , 259 P. 2d 211 ; In re Estate of Jones, 174 Kan. 506, 514 , 257 P. 2d 116 ; In re Estate of Johannes, 173 Kan. 298 , 245 P. 2d 979 ; Shotzman v. Ward, 172 Kan. 272, 279 , 239 P. 2d 935 ; Bradbury v. Wise, 167 Kan. 737 , 208 P. 2d 209 .

1953Ed], Trial, §§ 147 to 151 Inch, Appeal & Error, § 488) that in the determination of such question all facts proved by her must be accepted as true and given the benefit of all favorable inferences to be reasonably drawn therefrom, also keep in mind the trial court’s ruling on the demurrer should be sustained unless, after reviewing all her evidence in the light of the rule, we are required to say she has nevertheless failed to establish some one or more of the material facts of her case (Greep v. Bruns, 160 Kan. 48 , 159 P. 2d 803 ; Rowan v. Rosenthal, 113 Kan. 604 , 215 Pac. 1008 ).

1953Ed], Trial, §§ 147 to 151 Inch, Appeal & Error, § 488) that in the determination of such question all facts proved by her must be accepted as true and given the benefit of all favorable inferences to be reasonably drawn therefrom, also keep in mind the trial court’s ruling on the demurrer should be sustained unless, after reviewing all her evidence in the light of the rule, we are required to say she has nevertheless failed to establish some one or more of the material facts of her case (Greep v. Bruns, 160 Kan. 48 , 159 P. 2d 803 ; Rowan v. Rosenthal, 113 Kan. 604 , 215 Pac. 1008 ).

1953Ed], Trial, §§ 147 to 151 Inch, Appeal & Error, § 488) that in the determination of such question all facts proved by her must be accepted as true and given the benefit of all favorable inferences to be reasonably drawn therefrom, also keep in mind the trial court’s ruling on the demurrer should be sustained unless, after reviewing all her evidence in the light of the rule, we are required to say she has nevertheless failed to establish some one or more of the material facts of her case (Greep v. Bruns, 160 Kan. 48 , 159 P. 2d 803 ; Rowan v. Rosenthal, 113 Kan. 604 , 215 Pac. 1008 ).

1953Ed], Trial, §§ 147 to 151 Inch, Appeal & Error, § 488) that in the determination of such question all facts proved by her must be accepted as true and given the benefit of all favorable inferences to be reasonably drawn therefrom, also keep in mind the trial court’s ruling on the demurrer should be sustained unless, after reviewing all her evidence in the light of the rule, we are required to say she has nevertheless failed to establish some one or more of the material facts of her case (Greep v. Bruns, 160 Kan. 48 , 159 P. 2d 803 ; Rowan v. Rosenthal, 113 Kan. 604 , 215 Pac. 1008 ).

1943When we view it in the light of the rule laid down for testing sufficiency of evidence on demurrer (see Bessette v. Ernsting, 155 Kan. 540 , syl. ¶ 3, 127 P. 2d 438 , and Robinson v. Short, 148 Kan. 134 , syl. ¶ 1, 79 P. 2d 903 ) we are not concerned with any evidence of contrary effect nor with the jury’s conclusions later made.

1943When we view it in the light of the rule laid down for testing sufficiency of evidence on demurrer (see Bessette v. Ernsting, 155 Kan. 540 , syl. ¶ 3, 127 P. 2d 438 , and Robinson v. Short, 148 Kan. 134 , syl. ¶ 1, 79 P. 2d 903 ) we are not concerned with any evidence of contrary effect nor with the jury’s conclusions later made.

1943When we view it in the light of the rule laid down for testing sufficiency of evidence on demurrer (see Bessette v. Ernsting, 155 Kan. 540 , syl. ¶ 3, 127 P. 2d 438 , and Robinson v. Short, 148 Kan. 134 , syl. ¶ 1, 79 P. 2d 903 ) we are not concerned with any evidence of contrary effect nor with the jury’s conclusions later made.

1943When we view it in the light of the rule laid down for testing sufficiency of evidence on demurrer (see Bessette v. Ernsting, 155 Kan. 540 , syl. ¶ 3, 127 P. 2d 438 , and Robinson v. Short, 148 Kan. 134 , syl. ¶ 1, 79 P. 2d 903 ) we are not concerned with any evidence of contrary effect nor with the jury’s conclusions later made.

1932We will examine the questions raised in the light of the rule laid down in Smith v. Auld, 31 Kan. 262 , 1 Pac. 626 .

1926(Smith v. McClintock, 108 Kan. 833 , 196 Pac. 1089 ; Blitz v. Metzger, 119 Kan. 760, 766 , 241 Pac. 259 , and cases there cited.) It being a question of fact to be determined by the trial court, unless we can say, from an examination of the record, that there was no competent evidence to support the finding and judgment of the court, we cannot disturb it, and that cannot be said in. this case.

1926(Smith v. McClintock, 108 Kan. 833 , 196 Pac. 1089 ; Blitz v. Metzger, 119 Kan. 760, 766 , 241 Pac. 259 , and cases there cited.) It being a question of fact to be determined by the trial court, unless we can say, from an examination of the record, that there was no competent evidence to support the finding and judgment of the court, we cannot disturb it, and that cannot be said in. this case.

1926(Smith v. McClintock, 108 Kan. 833 , 196 Pac. 1089 ; Blitz v. Metzger, 119 Kan. 760, 766 , 241 Pac. 259 , and cases there cited.) It being a question of fact to be determined by the trial court, unless we can say, from an examination of the record, that there was no competent evidence to support the finding and judgment of the court, we cannot disturb it, and that cannot be said in. this case.

1926(Smith v. McClintock, 108 Kan. 833 , 196 Pac. 1089 ; Blitz v. Metzger, 119 Kan. 760, 766 , 241 Pac. 259 , and cases there cited.) It being a question of fact to be determined by the trial court, unless we can say, from an examination of the record, that there was no competent evidence to support the finding and judgment of the court, we cannot disturb it, and that cannot be said in. this case.

1902(Doolittle v. Ferry, 20 Kan. 230 , 27 Am.

1896Such waivers by attorneys are common either before or during the trial without the express authority of the client, and they should usually be upheld unless in case of fraud, imposition, collusion or mistake, when the court has ample authority to set them aside ; but there is no suggestion of any of these in this case.This conclusion in our opinion finds support in the following authorities: Holliday v. Stuart, 151 U. S. 229, 235 ; Cox v. Railroad Co., 63 N. Y. 414, 418 ; Saleski v. Boyd, 32 Ark. 74, 83 ; Rogers v. Greenwood, 14 Minn. 333 ; Eidam v. Finnegan, 48 id. 53 (16 L.

1896Such waivers by attorneys are common either before or during the trial without the express authority of the client, and they should usually be upheld unless in case of fraud, imposition, collusion or mistake, when the court has ample authority to set them aside ; but there is no suggestion of any of these in this case.This conclusion in our opinion finds support in the following authorities: Holliday v. Stuart, 151 U. S. 229, 235 ; Cox v. Railroad Co., 63 N. Y. 414, 418 ; Saleski v. Boyd, 32 Ark. 74, 83 ; Rogers v. Greenwood, 14 Minn. 333 ; Eidam v. Finnegan, 48 id. 53 (16 L.

1896Such waivers by attorneys are common either before or during the trial without the express authority of the client, and they should usually be upheld unless in case of fraud, imposition, collusion or mistake, when the court has ample authority to set them aside ; but there is no suggestion of any of these in this case.This conclusion in our opinion finds support in the following authorities: Holliday v. Stuart, 151 U. S. 229, 235 ; Cox v. Railroad Co., 63 N. Y. 414, 418 ; Saleski v. Boyd, 32 Ark. 74, 83 ; Rogers v. Greenwood, 14 Minn. 333 ; Eidam v. Finnegan, 48 id. 53 (16 L.

1896Such waivers by attorneys are common either before or during the trial without the express authority of the client, and they should usually be upheld unless in case of fraud, imposition, collusion or mistake, when the court has ample authority to set them aside ; but there is no suggestion of any of these in this case.This conclusion in our opinion finds support in the following authorities: Holliday v. Stuart, 151 U. S. 229, 235 ; Cox v. Railroad Co., 63 N. Y. 414, 418 ; Saleski v. Boyd, 32 Ark. 74, 83 ; Rogers v. Greenwood, 14 Minn. 333 ; Eidam v. Finnegan, 48 id. 53 (16 L.