10 Kansas opinions name it 2 courts 1988–2015 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 |
|---|---|---|
Pancake House, Inc. v. Redmond Ex Rel. Redmondgreen2 sentences2015In the context of a legal malpractice claim, the Pancake House court identified “four theories which can apply to attorney malpractice in Kansas as to when the accrual of a cause of action occurs and the statute of limitations begins to run.” 239 Kan. at 87 . “(1) The occurrence rule—die statute begins to run at the occurrence of die lawyer’s negligent act or omission. “(2) The damage rule—the client does not accrue a cause of action for malpractice until he suffers appreciable harm or actual damage as a consequence of his lawyer’s conduct. “(3) The discovery rule—the statute does not begin to 2015In the context of a legal malpractice claim, the Pancake House court identified “four theories which can apply to attorney malpractice in Kansas as to when the accrual of a cause of action occurs and the statute of limitations begins to run.” 239 Kan. at 87 . “(1) The occurrence rule—die statute begins to run at the occurrence of die lawyer’s negligent act or omission. “(2) The damage rule—the client does not accrue a cause of action for malpractice until he suffers appreciable harm or actual damage as a consequence of his lawyer’s conduct. “(3) The discovery rule—the statute does not begin to | 1 | 8 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Kansas. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
First State Bank of Crossett v. Phillips
green
2 sentences2010This subsection does not bar a person from asserting a violation of this subchapter in an action to collect the debt which was brought more than one year from the date of the occurrence of the violation as a matter of defense by recoupment or set-off in such action, except as otherwise provided by State law." This language "makes it clear that one sued to collect a debt may assert, as recoupment or set-off, any counterclaim for violation of the Federal Truth in Lending Disclosure Law regardless of the one year limitation." First State Bank of Crossett v. Phillips, 13 Ark.App. 157, 161 , 681 S. 2010This subsection does not bar a person from asserting a violation of this subchapter in an action to collect the debt which was brought more than one year from the date of the occurrence of the violation as a matter of defense by recoupment or set-off in such action, except as otherwise provided by State law." This language "makes it clear that one sued to collect a debt may assert, as recoupment or set-off, any counterclaim for violation of the Federal Truth in Lending Disclosure Law regardless of the one year limitation." First State Bank of Crossett v. Phillips, 13 Ark.App. 157, 161 , 681 S. | 2 | 2010–2010 |
United Missouri Bank of Kansas City v. Robinson
neutral
2 sentences2010This subsection does not bar a person from asserting a violation of this subchapter in an action to collect the debt which was brought more than one year from the date of the occurrence of the violation as a matter of defense by recoupment or set-off in such action, except as otherwise provided by State law." This language "makes it clear that one sued to collect a debt may assert, as recoupment or set-off, any counterclaim for violation of the Federal Truth in Lending Disclosure Law regardless of the one year limitation." First State Bank of Crossett v. Phillips, 13 Ark.App. 157, 161 , 681 S. 2010This subsection does not bar a person from asserting a violation of this subchapter in an action to collect the debt which was brought more than one year from the date of the occurrence of the violation as a matter of defense by recoupment or set-off in such action, except as otherwise provided by State law." This language "makes it clear that one sued to collect a debt may assert, as recoupment or set-off, any counterclaim for violation of the Federal Truth in Lending Disclosure Law regardless of the one year limitation." First State Bank of Crossett v. Phillips, 13 Ark.App. 157, 161 , 681 S. | 2 | 2010–2010 |
Dearborn Animal Clinic, P.A. v. Wilson
green
2 sentences2006The plaintiff challenges the application of the occurrence rule in this case, citing Dearborn Animal Clinic, P.A. v. Wilson, 248 Kan. 257 , 806 P.2d 997 (1991). 2006The plaintiff challenges the application of the occurrence rule in this case, citing Dearborn Animal Clinic, P.A. v. Wilson, 248 Kan. 257 , 806 P.2d 997 (1991). | 1 | 2006–2006 |
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.