10 Kansas opinions name it 2 courts 1983–2009 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 |
|---|---|---|
CJW v. Stategreen2 sentences2009The Boulanger court then focused on the uncle’s argument that the defendants owed him a duty under the special relationship doctrine set forth in Restatement § 315, which provides: “There is no duty so to control the conduct of a third person as to prevent him from causing physical harm to another unless (a) a special relation exists between the actor and the third person which imposes a duty upon the actor to control the third person’s conduct, or (b) a special relation exists between the actor and the other which gives to the other a right to protection.” Citing to C.J.W. v. State, 253 Kan. 2009The Boulanger court then focused on the uncle’s argument that the defendants owed him a duty under the special relationship doctrine set forth in Restatement § 315, which provides: “There is no duty so to control the conduct of a third person as to prevent him from causing physical harm to another unless (a) a special relation exists between the actor and the third person which imposes a duty upon the actor to control the third person’s conduct, or (b) a special relation exists between the actor and the other which gives to the other a right to protection.” Citing to C.J.W. v. State, 253 Kan. | 3 | 5 |
Rose v. Gisigreen2 sentences1983See Daniels v. Andersen, supra, 195 Neb. at 98 , 237 N.W.2d at 400 , Rose v. Gisi, 139 Neb. 593, 597-598 , 298 N.W. 333, 336 (1941). 1983See Daniels v. Andersen, supra, 195 Neb. at 98 , 237 N.W.2d at 400 , Rose v. Gisi, 139 Neb. 593, 597-598 , 298 N.W. 333, 336 (1941). | 1 | 1 |
Daniels Ex Rel. Jones v. Andersengreen2 sentences1983See Daniels v. Andersen, supra, 195 Neb. at 98 , 237 N.W.2d at 400 , Rose v. Gisi, 139 Neb. 593, 597-598 , 298 N.W. 333, 336 (1941). 1983See Daniels v. Andersen, supra, 195 Neb. at 98 , 237 N.W.2d at 400 , Rose v. Gisi, 139 Neb. 593, 597-598 , 298 N.W. 333, 336 (1941). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Kansas. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Boulanger v. Pol
green
2 sentences2009Boulanger, 258 Kan. at 303 ; see Restatement § 315, Comment c (special relations between the actor and the third person “which require the actor to control the third person’s conduct are stated in § § 316-319”; those which arise because of a relationship between the actor and another that “require the actor to control the conduct of third persons for the protection of the other are stated in §§ 314A and 320”). 1995In Boulanger v. Pol, 258 Kan. at 304 , the court reiterated: “Kansas courts have recognized an affirmative duty to protect third persons from harm based on the special relationship analysis set forth in § 315. | 3 | 1995–2009 |
Cummins v. Lewis County
green
2 sentences2009In Cummins v. Lewis County, 124 Wash. App. 247 , 98 P.3d 822 (2004), aff'd 156 Wash.2d 844 , 133 P.3d 458 (2006), a wrongful death action based upon failure to respond to a 911 call, the Washington Court of Appeals and then the Washington Supreme Court affirmed the entry of summary judgment against plaintiff based on her failure to demonstrate the existence of facts to support application of the special relationship exception to the public duty doctrine. 2009This overbroad argument fails to cite to the record, contradicts the public duty doctrine's central requirement that liability not attach to a government entity's duty to the public at large, and conflicts with all four of the doctrine's exceptions that require a reasonable degree of specificity." Cummins, 124 Wash.App. at 254-55 , 98 P.3d 822 . | 1 | 2009–2009 |
Cummins v. Lewis County
green
2 sentences2009In Cummins v. Lewis County, 124 Wash. App. 247 , 98 P.3d 822 (2004), aff'd 156 Wash.2d 844 , 133 P.3d 458 (2006), a wrongful death action based upon failure to respond to a 911 call, the Washington Court of Appeals and then the Washington Supreme Court affirmed the entry of summary judgment against plaintiff based on her failure to demonstrate the existence of facts to support application of the special relationship exception to the public duty doctrine. 2009The Supreme Court declared that a special relationship arises when "`"(1) there is a direct contact or privity between the public official and the injured plaintiff which sets the latter apart from the general public, and (2) there are express assurances given by a public official, which (3) gives rise to justifiable reliance on the part of the plaintiff."' [Citations omitted.]" 156 Wash.2d at 854 , 133 P.3d 458 . | 1 | 2009–2009 |
Cummins v. Lewis County
green
2 sentences2009In Cummins v. Lewis County, 124 Wash. App. 247 , 98 P.3d 822 (2004), aff'd 156 Wash.2d 844 , 133 P.3d 458 (2006), a wrongful death action based upon failure to respond to a 911 call, the Washington Court of Appeals and then the Washington Supreme Court affirmed the entry of summary judgment against plaintiff based on her failure to demonstrate the existence of facts to support application of the special relationship exception to the public duty doctrine. 2009The Supreme Court declared that a special relationship arises when "`"(1) there is a direct contact or privity between the public official and the injured plaintiff which sets the latter apart from the general public, and (2) there are express assurances given by a public official, which (3) gives rise to justifiable reliance on the part of the plaintiff."' [Citations omitted.]" 156 Wash.2d at 854 , 133 P.3d 458 . | 1 | 2009–2009 |
Cummins v. Lewis County
green
2 sentences2009In Cummins v. Lewis County, 124 Wash. App. 247 , 98 P.3d 822 (2004), aff'd 156 Wash.2d 844 , 133 P.3d 458 (2006), a wrongful death action based upon failure to respond to a 911 call, the Washington Court of Appeals and then the Washington Supreme Court affirmed the entry of summary judgment against plaintiff based on her failure to demonstrate the existence of facts to support application of the special relationship exception to the public duty doctrine. 2009This overbroad argument fails to cite to the record, contradicts the public duty doctrine's central requirement that liability not attach to a government entity's duty to the public at large, and conflicts with all four of the doctrine's exceptions that require a reasonable degree of specificity." Cummins, 124 Wash.App. at 254-55 , 98 P.3d 822 . | 1 | 2009–2009 |
Schmidt v. HTG, Inc.
green
1 sentence2001The two recognized exceptions to this general rule are: (1) the special relationship doctrine and (2) the danger creation theory. 265 Kan. at 379 . | 1 | 2001–2001 |
DeShaney v. Winnebago County Department of Social Services
green
1 sentence1998Ed. 2d 249 , 109 S. Ct. 998 (1989), the court noted that the two recognized exceptions are: (1) the special relationship doctrine, and (2) the danger creation theory. | 1 | 1998–1998 |
Nero v. Kansas State University
green
2 sentences1997Beshears, citing Nero v. Kansas State University, 253 Kan. 567 , 861 P.2d 768 (1993), argues that the special relationship doctrine expressed in Restatement (Second) of Torts § 315 should impose a duty on USD 305. 1997Beshears, citing Nero v. Kansas State University, 253 Kan. 567 , 861 P.2d 768 (1993), argues that the special relationship doctrine expressed in Restatement (Second) of Torts § 315 should impose a duty on USD 305. | 1 | 1997–1997 |
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.