local rule in Kansas

2019Denial of a party's claim "does not, in and of itself, indicate the claim was frivolous," and the "party who asserts a pleading has no basis in fact and is not asserted in good faith has the burden of proving that assertion." Giblin v. Giblin , 253 Kan. 240 , Syl. ¶¶ 3, 854 P.2d 816 (1993).

2019Denial of a party's claim "does not, in and of itself, indicate the claim was frivolous," and the "party who asserts a pleading has no basis in fact and is not asserted in good faith has the burden of proving that assertion." Giblin v. Giblin , 253 Kan. 240 , Syl. ¶¶ 3, 854 P.2d 816 (1993).

2017Review of the judgment of the Court of Appeals in 51 Kan.

2008Upon inquiry, Wonderly admitted to having “some drinks at a local bar earlier that evening and one or two drinks at a bar in Lenora, Kansas.” 38 Kan.

1994Annot. 107) states in part that a district court rule will be effective “upon *1003 filing with the Clerk of the Supreme Court.” The local rule to which counsel for McGraw and Trout refers is not on file with the Clerk of the Supreme Court and, therefore, is ineffective.' However, this court recently decided State v. Rios, 19 Kan.

1994App. 2d 350 , 869 P.2d 755 (1994).

1993In the absence of a stipulation, this court determined the trial court violated K.S.A. 1971 Supp. 60-248(a), which provided: “The parties may stipulate that the jury shall consist of any number less than twelve (12) or that a verdict or a finding of a stated majority of the jurors shall be taken, as the verdict or finding of the jury.” 209 Kan. at 513 .

1992In Sandstrom, 225 Kan. at 731 , the court pointed out that no one arbitrarily chose which persons would be on the jury list, there was nothing in the record to show systematic exclusion of members of any particular class, and defendant failed to show any prejudice by the method used.

1990Defendant recognizes that, following the United States Supreme Court decision in Illinois v. Gates, 462 U.S. 213 , the trial court will no longer employ the two-pronged analysis of Spinelli v. United States, 393 U.S. 410 , 21 L.

1990Defendant recognizes that, following the United States Supreme Court decision in Illinois v. Gates, 462 U.S. 213 , the trial court will no longer employ the two-pronged analysis of Spinelli v. United States, 393 U.S. 410 , 21 L.

1990Defendant recognizes that, following the United States Supreme Court decision in Illinois v. Gates, 462 U.S. 213 , the trial court will no longer employ the two-pronged analysis of Spinelli v. United States, 393 U.S. 410 , 21 L.

1987Partain v. Oakley, 159 W.Va. 805 , or to attorneys in particular cases.

1972(Colgrove v. Battin, 456 F. 2d 1379 .) In Colgrove the court held that the Seventh Amendment to the United States Constitution which applies to civil cases does not require a jury of 12 members and further that the local rule was not inconsistent with Rule 48 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure which is practically identical with K.

1972(Colgrove v. Battin, 456 F. 2d 1379 .) In Colgrove the court held that the Seventh Amendment to the United States Constitution which applies to civil cases does not require a jury of 12 members and further that the local rule was not inconsistent with Rule 48 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure which is practically identical with K.

1905Perhaps it is not too much to say that a good usage or custom in this state should, in addition to the common-law requisites, be shown to prevail all over the state, regarded as a single locality.” (Harper v. Pound, 10 Ind. 32, 35 .) “The gist of the objection is not that the custom is in contradiction to the express terms of the contract; but that it permits a general rule of law which is applicable to the contract to be superseded by a local rule, adopted by particular classes of men, and thus leads to confusion, misunderstanding, and wrong.” (Dickinson v. Gay and another, 7 Allen, 29 , 33,

1905Perhaps it is not too much to say that a good usage or custom in this state should, in addition to the common-law requisites, be shown to prevail all over the state, regarded as a single locality.” (Harper v. Pound, 10 Ind. 32, 35 .) “The gist of the objection is not that the custom is in contradiction to the express terms of the contract; but that it permits a general rule of law which is applicable to the contract to be superseded by a local rule, adopted by particular classes of men, and thus leads to confusion, misunderstanding, and wrong.” (Dickinson v. Gay and another, 7 Allen, 29 , 33,