9 Kansas opinions name it 2 courts 1965–2009 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 |
|---|---|---|
| No positive-treatment citations attached to this issue in Kansas. | ||
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Kansas. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Jackson v. American Best Freight System, Inc.
green
2 sentences1997Accordingly, the general rule is that a vested right to an existing defense is protected in like manner as a right of action, with the exception only of those *874 defenses which are based on informalities not affecting substantial rights.” Jackson v. American Best Freight System, Inc., 238 Kan. 322, 325 , 709 P.2d 983 (1985). 1997Accordingly, the general rule is that a vested right to an existing defense is protected in like manner as a right of action, with the exception only of those *874 defenses which are based on informalities not affecting substantial rights.” Jackson v. American Best Freight System, Inc., 238 Kan. 322, 325 , 709 P.2d 983 (1985). | 2 | 1992–1997 |
Pritchard v. Norton
green
2 sentences1996Pritchard v. Norton, 106 U.S. 124, 132 , 27 L. 1996Pritchard v. Norton, 106 U.S. 124, 132 , 27 L. | 2 | 1985–1996 |
Brown v. Eakin
green
1 sentence2009Brown v. Eakin, 137 A.2d 385 (Del. | 1 | 2009–2009 |
González v. Registrar of Property
neutral
1 sentence2006Schneider v. Liggett, 223 Kan. 610 , 576 P.2d 221 (1978) (involved the claimed right to practice medicine without malpractice coverage); State, ex rel., v. School District, 163 Kan. 650 , 185 P.2d 677 (1947) (involved the claimed right to existing school district boundaries); Brown v. City of Topeka, 146 Kan. 974 , 74 P.2d 142 (1937) (involved the claimed right to an existing street name); Bowen v. Wilson, 93 Kan. 351 , 14 Pac. 251 (1914) (involved the claimed right to an appeal); Wheelock v. Myers, 64 Kan. 47 , 67 Pac. 632 (1902) (involved the claimed right to an existing rule of evidence). | 1 | 2006–2006 |
Wheelock v. Myers
neutral
2 sentences2006Schneider v. Liggett, 223 Kan. 610 , 576 P.2d 221 (1978) (involved the claimed right to practice medicine without malpractice coverage); State, ex rel., v. School District, 163 Kan. 650 , 185 P.2d 677 (1947) (involved the claimed right to existing school district boundaries); Brown v. City of Topeka, 146 Kan. 974 , 74 P.2d 142 (1937) (involved the claimed right to an existing street name); Bowen v. Wilson, 93 Kan. 351 , 14 Pac. 251 (1914) (involved the claimed right to an appeal); Wheelock v. Myers, 64 Kan. 47 , 67 Pac. 632 (1902) (involved the claimed right to an existing rule of evidence). 2006Schneider v. Liggett, 223 Kan. 610 , 576 P.2d 221 (1978) (involved the claimed right to practice medicine without malpractice coverage); State, ex rel., v. School District, 163 Kan. 650 , 185 P.2d 677 (1947) (involved the claimed right to existing school district boundaries); Brown v. City of Topeka, 146 Kan. 974 , 74 P.2d 142 (1937) (involved the claimed right to an existing street name); Bowen v. Wilson, 93 Kan. 351 , 14 Pac. 251 (1914) (involved the claimed right to an appeal); Wheelock v. Myers, 64 Kan. 47 , 67 Pac. 632 (1902) (involved the claimed right to an existing rule of evidence). | 1 | 2006–2006 |
Bowen v. Wilson
neutral
1 sentence2006Schneider v. Liggett, 223 Kan. 610 , 576 P.2d 221 (1978) (involved the claimed right to practice medicine without malpractice coverage); State, ex rel., v. School District, 163 Kan. 650 , 185 P.2d 677 (1947) (involved the claimed right to existing school district boundaries); Brown v. City of Topeka, 146 Kan. 974 , 74 P.2d 142 (1937) (involved the claimed right to an existing street name); Bowen v. Wilson, 93 Kan. 351 , 14 Pac. 251 (1914) (involved the claimed right to an appeal); Wheelock v. Myers, 64 Kan. 47 , 67 Pac. 632 (1902) (involved the claimed right to an existing rule of evidence). | 1 | 2006–2006 |
Brown v. City of Topeka
green
2 sentences2006Schneider v. Liggett, 223 Kan. 610 , 576 P.2d 221 (1978) (involved the claimed right to practice medicine without malpractice coverage); State, ex rel., v. School District, 163 Kan. 650 , 185 P.2d 677 (1947) (involved the claimed right to existing school district boundaries); Brown v. City of Topeka, 146 Kan. 974 , 74 P.2d 142 (1937) (involved the claimed right to an existing street name); Bowen v. Wilson, 93 Kan. 351 , 14 Pac. 251 (1914) (involved the claimed right to an appeal); Wheelock v. Myers, 64 Kan. 47 , 67 Pac. 632 (1902) (involved the claimed right to an existing rule of evidence). 2006Schneider v. Liggett, 223 Kan. 610 , 576 P.2d 221 (1978) (involved the claimed right to practice medicine without malpractice coverage); State, ex rel., v. School District, 163 Kan. 650 , 185 P.2d 677 (1947) (involved the claimed right to existing school district boundaries); Brown v. City of Topeka, 146 Kan. 974 , 74 P.2d 142 (1937) (involved the claimed right to an existing street name); Bowen v. Wilson, 93 Kan. 351 , 14 Pac. 251 (1914) (involved the claimed right to an appeal); Wheelock v. Myers, 64 Kan. 47 , 67 Pac. 632 (1902) (involved the claimed right to an existing rule of evidence). | 1 | 2006–2006 |
State ex rel. Miller v. Common School District No. 87
green
1 sentence2006Schneider v. Liggett, 223 Kan. 610 , 576 P.2d 221 (1978) (involved the claimed right to practice medicine without malpractice coverage); State, ex rel., v. School District, 163 Kan. 650 , 185 P.2d 677 (1947) (involved the claimed right to existing school district boundaries); Brown v. City of Topeka, 146 Kan. 974 , 74 P.2d 142 (1937) (involved the claimed right to an existing street name); Bowen v. Wilson, 93 Kan. 351 , 14 Pac. 251 (1914) (involved the claimed right to an appeal); Wheelock v. Myers, 64 Kan. 47 , 67 Pac. 632 (1902) (involved the claimed right to an existing rule of evidence). | 1 | 2006–2006 |
State Ex Rel. Schneider v. Liggett
green
2 sentences2006Schneider v. Liggett, 223 Kan. 610 , 576 P.2d 221 (1978) (involved the claimed right to practice medicine without malpractice coverage); State, ex rel., v. School District, 163 Kan. 650 , 185 P.2d 677 (1947) (involved the claimed right to existing school district boundaries); Brown v. City of Topeka, 146 Kan. 974 , 74 P.2d 142 (1937) (involved the claimed right to an existing street name); Bowen v. Wilson, 93 Kan. 351 , 14 Pac. 251 (1914) (involved the claimed right to an appeal); Wheelock v. Myers, 64 Kan. 47 , 67 Pac. 632 (1902) (involved the claimed right to an existing rule of evidence). 2006Schneider v. Liggett, 223 Kan. 610 , 576 P.2d 221 (1978) (involved the claimed right to practice medicine without malpractice coverage); State, ex rel., v. School District, 163 Kan. 650 , 185 P.2d 677 (1947) (involved the claimed right to existing school district boundaries); Brown v. City of Topeka, 146 Kan. 974 , 74 P.2d 142 (1937) (involved the claimed right to an existing street name); Bowen v. Wilson, 93 Kan. 351 , 14 Pac. 251 (1914) (involved the claimed right to an appeal); Wheelock v. Myers, 64 Kan. 47 , 67 Pac. 632 (1902) (involved the claimed right to an existing rule of evidence). | 1 | 2006–2006 |
City of Seattle v. Leach
neutral
2 sentences1995“An administrative inspection warrant may be based on either (1) specific evidence of an existing violation, or (2) a general inspection program based on reasonable legislative or administrative standards derived from neutral sources.” 29 Wash. App. at 84 . 1995However, the Leach court concluded the affidavit supporting the warrant was not sufficient because it failed to describe the program for inspection in sufficient detail to allow a detached and neutral magistrate to determine there was a reasonable legislative or administrative inspection program and that the desired inspection fit within that program. 29 Wash. App. at 85 . | 1 | 1995–1995 |
State v. McQuillen
green
2 sentences1992In his concurring opinion in State v. McQuillen, 236 Kan. 161 , 689 P.2d 822 (1984), Justice Herd noted and explained why the rule of precedent or stare decisis is based on sound reasoning. 1992In his concurring opinion in State v. McQuillen, 236 Kan. 161 , 689 P.2d 822 (1984), Justice Herd noted and explained why the rule of precedent or stare decisis is based on sound reasoning. | 1 | 1992–1992 |
Gideon v. Wainwright
green
2 sentences1965In asking this court to modify its past rulings on this question the appellant overlooks the fact that a reappraisal was undertaken by the court subsequent to Gideon v. Wainwright, 372 U. S. 335 , 9 L. 1965In asking this court to modify its past rulings on this question the appellant overlooks the fact that a reappraisal was undertaken by the court subsequent to Gideon v. Wainwright, 372 U. S. 335 , 9 L. | 1 | 1965–1965 |
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.