10 Kansas opinions name it 2 courts 1905–2009 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 |
|---|---|---|
Gas Service Co. v. Kansas Corporation Commissiongreen2 sentences2002In discussing the process of adjusting expenses outside the test year, this court has previously stated: “ ‘Ratemaking, by its very nature, is prospective and in order to neutralize the negative effects of speculation and guesswork about future economic conditions, it is accepted practice to base future rates upon known past and present conditions through the use of data gathered during a specified test period. [Citation omitted.] This process of prognostication creates a conflict between the need to lend some finality to ratemaldng by utilizing a well-defined, finite test period and the need 2002App. 2d 623, 635-36, 609 P.2d 1157 , rev. denied 228 Kan. 806 (1980) (quoting Narragansett Elec. | 1 | 1 |
State v. Blygreen2 sentences1982The rules relating to the admissibility of other crimes evidence to prove identity are succinctly set forth in State v. Bly, 215 Kan. 168, 177, 178 , 523 P.2d 397 (1974): “Where a similar offense is offered for the purpose of proving identity, the evidence should disclose sufficient facts and circumstances of the other offense to raise a reasonable inference that the defendant committed both of the offenses. 1982The rules relating to the admissibility of other crimes evidence to prove identity are succinctly set forth in State v. Bly, 215 Kan. 168, 177, 178 , 523 P.2d 397 (1974): “Where a similar offense is offered for the purpose of proving identity, the evidence should disclose sufficient facts and circumstances of the other offense to raise a reasonable inference that the defendant committed both of the offenses. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Kansas. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Narragansett Electric Co. v. Harsch
green
2 sentences1983Co. v. Harsch, 117 R.I. 395, 416 , 368 A.2d 1194 (1977).” 4 Kan. 1983Co. v. Harsch, 117 R.I. 395, 416 , 368 A.2d 1194 (1977).” 4 Kan. | 3 | 1980–1983 |
TMG Life Insurance v. Ashner
green
1 sentence2009In making that determination, TMG further cautions us: “In the absence of cleár evidence to the contrary, when parties of equal sophistication negotiate a loan agreement, courts should presume that the .creditor gave value, in the form of some other term of the agreement or otherwise, for terms favorable to the creditor in calculating the discount rate and formula to be used in computing the prepayment premium. [Citation omitted.] Moreover, ‘[t]he parties are not required to make the best estimation of damages, just one that is reasonable.’ [Citation omitted.] ‘It is immaterial that the actual | 1 | 2009–2009 |
State v. Shannon
green
2 sentences2000State v. Shannon, 258 Kan. 425, 427 , 905 P.2d 649 (1995).” When this court considers a trial court’s refusal to give a specified instruction, the evidence is viewed *209 in the light most favorable to the party requesting the instruction. 2000State v. Shannon, 258 Kan. 425, 427 , 905 P.2d 649 (1995).” When this court considers a trial court’s refusal to give a specified instruction, the evidence is viewed *209 in the light most favorable to the party requesting the instruction. | 1 | 2000–2000 |
State v. Sims
green
2 sentences2000State v. Sims, 265 Kan. 166, 168 , 960 P.2d 1271 (1998). 2000State v. Sims, 265 Kan. 166, 168 , 960 P.2d 1271 (1998). | 1 | 2000–2000 |
In the Matter of Lhd Realty Corporation, Debtor. Appeal of National Life Insurance Company
green
1 sentence1995Guarantors also argue a prepayment premium is impermissible when prepayment is the result of the creditor’s voluntary acceleration of the debt, citing Matter of LHD Realty Corp., 726 F.2d 327 (7th Cir. 1984), which held: “There are, however, some limitations upon the right to receive a prepayment premium. | 1 | 1995–1995 |
State v. Jones
green
2 sentences1995In State v. Jones, 246 Kan. 214, 219 , 787 P.2d 726 (1990), this court specified factors which a judge may consider in exercising discretion as to the admissibility of a declaration against interest: “A trial judge has wide discretion in determining the admissibility of a declaration against interest and may consider such factors as the nature and character of the statement, the person to whom the statement was made, the relationship between the parties, and the probable motivation of the declarant in making the statement.” In Chambers v. Mississippi, 410 U.S. 284 , the United States Supreme C 1995In State v. Jones, 246 Kan. 214, 219 , 787 P.2d 726 (1990), this court specified factors which a judge may consider in exercising discretion as to the admissibility of a declaration against interest: “A trial judge has wide discretion in determining the admissibility of a declaration against interest and may consider such factors as the nature and character of the statement, the person to whom the statement was made, the relationship between the parties, and the probable motivation of the declarant in making the statement.” In Chambers v. Mississippi, 410 U.S. 284 , the United States Supreme C | 1 | 1995–1995 |
Chambers v. Mississippi
green
1 sentence1995In State v. Jones, 246 Kan. 214, 219 , 787 P.2d 726 (1990), this court specified factors which a judge may consider in exercising discretion as to the admissibility of a declaration against interest: “A trial judge has wide discretion in determining the admissibility of a declaration against interest and may consider such factors as the nature and character of the statement, the person to whom the statement was made, the relationship between the parties, and the probable motivation of the declarant in making the statement.” In Chambers v. Mississippi, 410 U.S. 284 , the United States Supreme C | 1 | 1995–1995 |
Kalina v. Union Pacific Railroad
neutral
2 sentences1905In volume 6 of the Cyclopedia of Law and Procedure, at page 519, it is said: “So if the carrier seeks to escape liability on the ground that the loss of or injury to the goods is one excepted by a valid special contract, he has the burden of proving not only the making of such special contract, but also that the loss or injury for which action is brought falls within a specified exception contained in such special contract.” Counsel for plaintiff in error rely on Kalina v. Railroad Co., 69 Kan. 172 , 76 Pac. 438 , to support the contention that plaintiffs were required to prove they had given 1905In volume 6 of the Cyclopedia of Law and Procedure, at page 519, it is said: “So if the carrier seeks to escape liability on the ground that the loss of or injury to the goods is one excepted by a valid special contract, he has the burden of proving not only the making of such special contract, but also that the loss or injury for which action is brought falls within a specified exception contained in such special contract.” Counsel for plaintiff in error rely on Kalina v. Railroad Co., 69 Kan. 172 , 76 Pac. 438 , to support the contention that plaintiffs were required to prove they had given | 1 | 1905–1905 |
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.