Already have an account? Sign in instead.
You stay signed in for 30 days on this browser.
Continue with Google Continue with MicrosoftNo account yet? Create a free one.
We sent a six-digit code.
It expires in ten minutes, works once, and only in this browser. Five wrong tries void it. Send another code.
Your account is live and the Cloudflare checks are off for this browser.
10 Kansas opinions name it 2 courts 1906–2010 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 |
|---|---|---|
| No positive-treatment citations attached to this issue in Kansas. | ||
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
In Re the Estate of Hillsgreen2 sentences1994But see In re Estate of Hills, 222 Kan. 231, 233 , 564 P.2d 462 (1977) (quoting agreement that contained provision that purchasers were “given the right and privilege of prepayment of any principal amount at the time of any principal, payment date.” [Emphasis added.]); Union Central Life Ins. 1994But see In re Estate of Hills, 222 Kan. 231, 233 , 564 P.2d 462 (1977) (quoting agreement that contained provision that purchasers were “given the right and privilege of prepayment of any principal amount at the time of any principal, payment date.” [Emphasis added.]); Union Central Life Ins. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Shanks v. Robertson
green
2 sentences1990By analogy, the requirements for an overland highway easement are set out in Shanks v. Robertson, 101 Kan. 463, 465 , 168 Pac. 316 (1917): “ ‘To establish a highway by prescription the land in question must have been used by the public with the actual or implied knowledge of the landowner, adversely under claim or color of right, and not merely by the owner’s permission, and continuously and uninterruptedly, for the period required to bar an action for the recovery of possession of land or otherwise prescribed by statute. 1979The basic elements of prescription were set out in Shanks v. Robertson, 101 Kan. 463, 465 , 168 Pac. 316 (1917): “In 37 Cyc. 21, this language is found: ‘To establish a highway by prescription the land in question must have been used by the public with the actual or implied knowledge of the landowner, *424 adversely under claim or color of right, and not merely by the owner’s permission, and continuously and uninterruptedly, for the period required to bar an action for the recovery of possession of land or otherwise prescribed by statute. | 4 | 1976–2000 |
Horsfield v. Missouri & Kansas Telephone Co.
green
2 sentences1990By analogy, the requirements for an overland highway easement are set out in Shanks v. Robertson, 101 Kan. 463, 465 , 168 Pac. 316 (1917): “ ‘To establish a highway by prescription the land in question must have been used by the public with the actual or implied knowledge of the landowner, adversely under claim or color of right, and not merely by the owner’s permission, and continuously and uninterruptedly, for the period required to bar an action for the recovery of possession of land or otherwise prescribed by statute. 1979The basic elements of prescription were set out in Shanks v. Robertson, 101 Kan. 463, 465 , 168 Pac. 316 (1917): “In 37 Cyc. 21, this language is found: ‘To establish a highway by prescription the land in question must have been used by the public with the actual or implied knowledge of the landowner, *424 adversely under claim or color of right, and not merely by the owner’s permission, and continuously and uninterruptedly, for the period required to bar an action for the recovery of possession of land or otherwise prescribed by statute. | 4 | 1976–2000 |
Kratina v. Board of Commissioners
green
2 sentences2010In Kratina v. Board of Commissioners, 219 Kan. 499, 502 , 548 P.2d 1232 (1976), the Kansas Supreme Court discussed the elements required to establish a public prescriptive easement: “ ‘To establish a highway by prescription the land in question must have been used by the public with the actual or implied knowledge of the landowner, adversely under claim or color of right, and not merely by the owner’s permission, and continuously and uninterruptedly, for the period required to bar an action for the recovery of possession of land or otherwise prescribed by statute. 2010In Kratina v. Board of Commissioners, 219 Kan. 499, 502 , 548 P.2d 1232 (1976), the Kansas Supreme Court discussed the elements required to establish a public prescriptive easement: “ ‘To establish a highway by prescription the land in question must have been used by the public with the actual or implied knowledge of the landowner, adversely under claim or color of right, and not merely by the owner’s permission, and continuously and uninterruptedly, for the period required to bar an action for the recovery of possession of land or otherwise prescribed by statute. | 2 | 2000–2010 |
Klingman v. Gilbert
green
2 sentences1981If by any conceivable combination of circumstances it is possible that the event upon which the estate or interest is limited may not occur within the period of the rule, or if there is left any room for uncertainty or doubt on the point, the limitation is void.' "The foregoing statement constitutes the well recognized rule which is in harmony with our own decisions. ( Klingman v. Gilbert, 90 Kan. 545, 548 , 135 Pac. 682 ; Malmquist v. Detar, 123 Kan. 384 , 255 Pac. 42 ; Beverlin v. First National Bank, 151 Kan. 307 , 98 P.2d 200 ; McEwen v. Enoch, 167 Kan. 119 , 204 P.2d 736 .)" 170 Kan. at 4 1981If by any conceivable combination of circumstances it is possible that the event upon which the estate or interest is limited may not occur within the period of the rule, or if there is left any room for uncertainty or doubt on the point, the limitation is void.' "The foregoing statement constitutes the well recognized rule which is in harmony with our own decisions. ( Klingman v. Gilbert, 90 Kan. 545, 548 , 135 Pac. 682 ; Malmquist v. Detar, 123 Kan. 384 , 255 Pac. 42 ; Beverlin v. First National Bank, 151 Kan. 307 , 98 P.2d 200 ; McEwen v. Enoch, 167 Kan. 119 , 204 P.2d 736 .)" 170 Kan. at 4 | 2 | 1951–1981 |
Malmquist v. Detar
neutral
2 sentences1981If by any conceivable combination of circumstances it is possible that the event upon which the estate or interest is limited may not occur within the period of the rule, or if there is left any room for uncertainty or doubt on the point, the limitation is void.' "The foregoing statement constitutes the well recognized rule which is in harmony with our own decisions. ( Klingman v. Gilbert, 90 Kan. 545, 548 , 135 Pac. 682 ; Malmquist v. Detar, 123 Kan. 384 , 255 Pac. 42 ; Beverlin v. First National Bank, 151 Kan. 307 , 98 P.2d 200 ; McEwen v. Enoch, 167 Kan. 119 , 204 P.2d 736 .)" 170 Kan. at 4 1981If by any conceivable combination of circumstances it is possible that the event upon which the estate or interest is limited may not occur within the period of the rule, or if there is left any room for uncertainty or doubt on the point, the limitation is void.' "The foregoing statement constitutes the well recognized rule which is in harmony with our own decisions. ( Klingman v. Gilbert, 90 Kan. 545, 548 , 135 Pac. 682 ; Malmquist v. Detar, 123 Kan. 384 , 255 Pac. 42 ; Beverlin v. First National Bank, 151 Kan. 307 , 98 P.2d 200 ; McEwen v. Enoch, 167 Kan. 119 , 204 P.2d 736 .)" 170 Kan. at 4 | 2 | 1951–1981 |
Beverlin v. First National Bank
green
2 sentences1981If by any conceivable combination of circumstances it is possible that the event upon which the estate or interest is limited may not occur within the period of the rule, or if there is left any room for uncertainty or doubt on the point, the limitation is void.' "The foregoing statement constitutes the well recognized rule which is in harmony with our own decisions. ( Klingman v. Gilbert, 90 Kan. 545, 548 , 135 Pac. 682 ; Malmquist v. Detar, 123 Kan. 384 , 255 Pac. 42 ; Beverlin v. First National Bank, 151 Kan. 307 , 98 P.2d 200 ; McEwen v. Enoch, 167 Kan. 119 , 204 P.2d 736 .)" 170 Kan. at 4 1981If by any conceivable combination of circumstances it is possible that the event upon which the estate or interest is limited may not occur within the period of the rule, or if there is left any room for uncertainty or doubt on the point, the limitation is void.' "The foregoing statement constitutes the well recognized rule which is in harmony with our own decisions. ( Klingman v. Gilbert, 90 Kan. 545, 548 , 135 Pac. 682 ; Malmquist v. Detar, 123 Kan. 384 , 255 Pac. 42 ; Beverlin v. First National Bank, 151 Kan. 307 , 98 P.2d 200 ; McEwen v. Enoch, 167 Kan. 119 , 204 P.2d 736 .)" 170 Kan. at 4 | 2 | 1951–1981 |
McEwen v. Enoch
green
2 sentences1981If by any conceivable combination of circumstances it is possible that the event upon which the estate or interest is limited may not occur within the period of the rule, or if there is left any room for uncertainty or doubt on the point, the limitation is void.' "The foregoing statement constitutes the well recognized rule which is in harmony with our own decisions. ( Klingman v. Gilbert, 90 Kan. 545, 548 , 135 Pac. 682 ; Malmquist v. Detar, 123 Kan. 384 , 255 Pac. 42 ; Beverlin v. First National Bank, 151 Kan. 307 , 98 P.2d 200 ; McEwen v. Enoch, 167 Kan. 119 , 204 P.2d 736 .)" 170 Kan. at 4 1981If by any conceivable combination of circumstances it is possible that the event upon which the estate or interest is limited may not occur within the period of the rule, or if there is left any room for uncertainty or doubt on the point, the limitation is void.' "The foregoing statement constitutes the well recognized rule which is in harmony with our own decisions. ( Klingman v. Gilbert, 90 Kan. 545, 548 , 135 Pac. 682 ; Malmquist v. Detar, 123 Kan. 384 , 255 Pac. 42 ; Beverlin v. First National Bank, 151 Kan. 307 , 98 P.2d 200 ; McEwen v. Enoch, 167 Kan. 119 , 204 P.2d 736 .)" 170 Kan. at 4 | 2 | 1951–1981 |
J. C. Nichols Co. v. Meredith
green
2 sentences1994This court has previously referred to a prepayment provision in a mortgage as a “privilege.” Meadowlark Hill, Inc. v. Kearns, 211 Kan. 35, 36-37 , 505 P.2d 1127 (1973) (noting parties to the mortgage and note “modified the prepayment privilege by extending the period in which no privilege was reserved to prepay principal from ten to thirteen years” [Emphasis added.]); Nichols Co. v. Meredith, 192 Kan. 648, 650 , 391 P.2d 136 (1964) (prepayment privilege). 1994This court has previously referred to a prepayment provision in a mortgage as a “privilege.” Meadowlark Hill, Inc. v. Kearns, 211 Kan. 35, 36-37 , 505 P.2d 1127 (1973) (noting parties to the mortgage and note “modified the prepayment privilege by extending the period in which no privilege was reserved to prepay principal from ten to thirteen years” [Emphasis added.]); Nichols Co. v. Meredith, 192 Kan. 648, 650 , 391 P.2d 136 (1964) (prepayment privilege). | 1 | 1994–1994 |
Meadowlark Hill, Inc. v. Kearns
green
2 sentences1994This court has previously referred to a prepayment provision in a mortgage as a “privilege.” Meadowlark Hill, Inc. v. Kearns, 211 Kan. 35, 36-37 , 505 P.2d 1127 (1973) (noting parties to the mortgage and note “modified the prepayment privilege by extending the period in which no privilege was reserved to prepay principal from ten to thirteen years” [Emphasis added.]); Nichols Co. v. Meredith, 192 Kan. 648, 650 , 391 P.2d 136 (1964) (prepayment privilege). 1994This court has previously referred to a prepayment provision in a mortgage as a “privilege.” Meadowlark Hill, Inc. v. Kearns, 211 Kan. 35, 36-37 , 505 P.2d 1127 (1973) (noting parties to the mortgage and note “modified the prepayment privilege by extending the period in which no privilege was reserved to prepay principal from ten to thirteen years” [Emphasis added.]); Nichols Co. v. Meredith, 192 Kan. 648, 650 , 391 P.2d 136 (1964) (prepayment privilege). | 1 | 1994–1994 |
Perotti v. First National Bank
green
2 sentences1984In re Estate of Freeman, 195 Kan. 190 , Syl. ¶ 2. 1984In re Estate of Freeman, 195 Kan. 190 , Syl. ¶ 2. | 1 | 1984–1984 |
Lathrop v. Eyestone
green
2 sentences1981(Klingman v. Gilbert, 90 Kan. 545, 548 , 135 Pac. 682 ; Malmquist v. Detar, 123 Kan. 384 , 255 Pac. 42 ; Beverlin v. First National Bank, 151 Kan. 307 , 98 P.2d 200 ; McEwen v. Enoch, 167 Kan. 119 , 204 P.2d 736 .)” 170 Kan. at 428-429 . 1981If by any conceivable combination of circumstances it is possible that the event upon which the estate or interest is limited may not occur within the period of the rule, or if there is left any room for uncertainty or doubt on the point, the limitation is void.' "The foregoing statement constitutes the well recognized rule which is in harmony with our own decisions. ( Klingman v. Gilbert, 90 Kan. 545, 548 , 135 Pac. 682 ; Malmquist v. Detar, 123 Kan. 384 , 255 Pac. 42 ; Beverlin v. First National Bank, 151 Kan. 307 , 98 P.2d 200 ; McEwen v. Enoch, 167 Kan. 119 , 204 P.2d 736 .)" 170 Kan. at 4 | 1 | 1981–1981 |
Mullen v. Sanborn
green
2 sentences1906(See, in this connection, Mullen v. Sanborn and Mann, 79 Md. 364 , 29 Atl. 522 , 25 L. 1906(See, in this connection, Mullen v. Sanborn and Mann, 79 Md. 364 , 29 Atl. 522 , 25 L. | 1 | 1906–1906 |
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.