history rule in Kansas

1991Second, it has been stressed that ‘[the court] must . . . weigh the merits and demerits in each case by looking to the prior history of the rule in question, its purpose and effect, and whether retrospective operation will further or retard its operation.’ [Citation omitted.] Finally, [the court should weigh] the inequity imposed by retroactive application . . . .” Chevron, 404 U.S. at 106-07 .

1989Second, it has been stressed that ‘we must [citation omitted] weigh the merits and demerits in each case by looking to the prior history of the rule in question, its purpose and effect, and whether retrospective operation will further or retard its operation.’ [Citation omitted.] Finally, we have weighed the inequity imposed by retroactive application, for ‘[w]here a decision of this Court could produce substantial inequitable results if applied retroactively, there is ample basis in our cases for avoiding the “injustice or hardship” by a holding of nonretroactivity.’ ” 404 U.S. at 106-07 .

2013In reaching that conclusion, the court also traced the history of the doctrine, a discussion we have cited. 289 F.3d at 655-57 .

2013Given Episcopal doctrine on homosexuality and marriage, the court found tire matter of Bryce’s employment to be inseparable from “ecclesiastical” considerations of faith, church organization, and religious “rule, custom, [and] law.” 289 F.3d at 658 .

1974S. 2d 794: “To begin with the earliest, in Turner v. Kuowenhoven ( 100 N. Y. 115, 120 ), the Court of Appeals stated that ‘flagrant acts of dishonesty or crime which seriously affect the master’s interest, continued during the service, might well be regarded as a bar to the recovery of wages, although the amount received and fraudulently appropriated might be far less than the amount fixed by the contract.’ (Italics supplied.) “In Abramson v. Dry Goods Refolding Co. (166 N. Y.

1974S., Master and Servant, § 105: “A breach of the contract of employment other than by quitting the service may prevent a recovery of any wages thereunder, or of wages for the remainder of the term, as where the employee is guilty of gross misconduct, or misconduct substantially affecting the contract of employment, in the course of his employment, or has practiced intentional fraud on his employer, or has proved disloyal to him in a manner substantially affecting the contract of employment, or has assaulted his employer, or has falsified his accounts, or has stolen or embezzled the money of his

1969The rule was most recently recognized in Babcock v. City of Kansas City, 197 Kan. 610 , 419 P.2d 882 , and Tripp v. Board of County Commissioners, 188 Kan. 438 , 362 P.2d 612 .

1969The rule was most recently recognized in Babcock v. City of Kansas City, 197 Kan. 610 , 419 P.2d 882 , and Tripp v. Board of County Commissioners, 188 Kan. 438 , 362 P.2d 612 .

1969His interests may never be affected, nor does the petition show that they necessarily ever will be. .............. "... the private citizen, as such, cannot sue in his own name for[*] public injuries where his rights and interests are the same as those of every other member of the community." (pp. [*]521, [*]522, [*]524 and [*]525.) The rule has been consistently followed by this court down through Rowlands v. State, 187 Kan. 174 , 354 P.2d 674 , which sets out a history of the rule and a series of adhering cases commencing with the decision in Craft.

1969His interests may never be affected, nor does the petition show that they necessarily ever will be. .............. "... the private citizen, as such, cannot sue in his own name for[*] public injuries where his rights and interests are the same as those of every other member of the community." (pp. [*]521, [*]522, [*]524 and [*]525.) The rule has been consistently followed by this court down through Rowlands v. State, 187 Kan. 174 , 354 P.2d 674 , which sets out a history of the rule and a series of adhering cases commencing with the decision in Craft.

1969The rule was most recently recognized in Babcock v. City of Kansas City, 197 Kan. 610 , 419 P.2d 882 , and Tripp v. Board of County Commissioners, 188 Kan. 438 , 362 P.2d 612 .

1969The rule was most recently recognized in Babcock v. City of Kansas City, 197 Kan. 610 , 419 P.2d 882 , and Tripp v. Board of County Commissioners, 188 Kan. 438 , 362 P.2d 612 .

1959That rule was first adopted in Carson v. Funk, 27 Kan. 524 , and was taken from the state of In diana (Woodall v. Greater, 51 Ind. 539 ; Lingerman v. Nave, 31 Ind. 222 ).

1959That rule was first adopted in Carson v. Funk, 27 Kan. 524 , and was taken from the state of In diana (Woodall v. Greater, 51 Ind. 539 ; Lingerman v. Nave, 31 Ind. 222 ).

1959That rule was first adopted in Carson v. Funk, 27 Kan. 524 , and was taken from the state of In diana (Woodall v. Greater, 51 Ind. 539 ; Lingerman v. Nave, 31 Ind. 222 ).

1905In the case of Atchison v. Peterson, 20 Wall. 507, 512 , 22 L.

1905In the case of Atchison v. Peterson, 20 Wall. 507, 512 , 22 L.