9 Kansas opinions name it 2 courts 1988–2025 3 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 |
|---|---|---|
Mathis v. TG & Ygreen2 sentences2025Rather, a corollary rule to the one- action rule is "that a person who is not made a party to a comparative negligence case is not bound by the judgment." Mathis v. TG & Y, 242 Kan. 789, 791 , 751 P.2d 136 (1988) (citing Eurich v. Alkire, 224 Kan. 236 , 579 P.2d 1207 [1978]). 2025Rather, a corollary rule to the one- action rule is "that a person who is not made a party to a comparative negligence case is not bound by the judgment." Mathis v. TG & Y, 242 Kan. 789, 791 , 751 P.2d 136 (1988) (citing Eurich v. Alkire, 224 Kan. 236 , 579 P.2d 1207 [1978]). | 2 | 5 |
Childs Ex Rel. Harvey v. Williamsgreen2 sentences2021Childs, 243 Kan. at 443 . 2009See, e.g., Childs, 243 Kan. at 441 . | 2 | 4 |
Mick v. Manigreen2 sentences2022DCI cites no authority for its suggestion that this exception to the one-action rule may be extended to defendants.' [Citations omitted.]" 288 Kan. at 635 -36 (quoting Mick, 244 Kan. at 93 ). 2021In Mick v. Mani, 244 Kan. 81, 93 , 766 P.2d 147 (1988), our Supreme Court held that its recent cases in Mathis, Anderson, and Childs created an exception to the one- action rule when there had been no previous judicial determination of fault. | 1 | 6 |
Eurich v. Alkiregreen2 sentences2025Rather, a corollary rule to the one- action rule is "that a person who is not made a party to a comparative negligence case is not bound by the judgment." Mathis v. TG & Y, 242 Kan. 789, 791 , 751 P.2d 136 (1988) (citing Eurich v. Alkire, 224 Kan. 236 , 579 P.2d 1207 [1978]). 2025Rather, a corollary rule to the one- action rule is "that a person who is not made a party to a comparative negligence case is not bound by the judgment." Mathis v. TG & Y, 242 Kan. 789, 791 , 751 P.2d 136 (1988) (citing Eurich v. Alkire, 224 Kan. 236 , 579 P.2d 1207 [1978]). | 1 | 3 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Kansas. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Teepak, Inc. v. Learned
green
2 sentences2010Brown v. Keill, 224 Kan. 195, 207 , 580 P.2d 867 (1978). *425 “In Teepak, Inc. v. Learned, 237 Kan. 320 , 699 P.2d 35 (1985), the Supreme Court applied the one-action rule to successive tortfeasors. 2010Brown v. Keill, 224 Kan. 195, 207 , 580 P.2d 867 (1978). *425 “In Teepak, Inc. v. Learned, 237 Kan. 320 , 699 P.2d 35 (1985), the Supreme Court applied the one-action rule to successive tortfeasors. | 3 | 1988–2010 |
Albertson v. Volkswagenwerk Aktiengesellschaft
green
2 sentences2022Those not joined as parties or for determination of fault escape liability." 230 Kan. at 374 . 18 This court and our Supreme Court have cited the one-action rule as originating with Albertson. 1988Because the second lawsuit was dismissed, there was no judicial adjudication of comparative fault of the defendants. *90 TG&Y then moved in the original action for summary judgment based on the one-action rule of Albertson v. Volkswagenwerk Aktiengesellschaft, 230 Kan. 368 , and Teepak, Inc. v. Learned, 237 Kan. 320 . | 2 | 1988–2022 |
Anderson v. Scheffler
green
2 sentences2009“Although not mentioned in DCFs appeal brief, DCI sought to rely at oral argument upon Anderson v. Scheffler, 242 Kan. 857, 858 , 752 P.2d 667 (1988), in further support of its argument regarding ehmination of the one-action rule. 2009“Although not mentioned in DCFs appeal brief, DCI sought to rely at oral argument upon Anderson v. Scheffler, 242 Kan. 857, 858 , 752 P.2d 667 (1988), in further support of its argument regarding ehmination of the one-action rule. | 2 | 2007–2009 |
Dodge City Implement, Inc. v. Board of County Commissioners
green
2 sentences2022DCI cites no authority for its suggestion that this exception to the one-action rule may be extended to defendants.' [Citations omitted.]" 288 Kan. at 635 -36 (quoting Mick, 244 Kan. at 93 ). 2022DCI cites no authority for its suggestion that this exception to the one-action rule may be extended to defendants.' [Citations omitted.]" 288 Kan. at 635 -36 (quoting Mick, 244 Kan. at 93 ). | 1 | 2022–2022 |
Schaefer v. Horizon Building Corp.
green
2 sentences2022This court succinctly summarized the central premise of the one-action rule in Schaefer v. Horizon Building Corp., 26 Kan. 2022App. 2d 401 , 985 P.2d 723 (1999): "In order to prevail on a claim for partial indemnity or contribution against a third-party defendant, the settlor must show it actually paid damages on behalf of that third party. | 1 | 2022–2022 |
Tersiner v. Gretencord
neutral
1 sentence2022See Mick v. Mani, 244 Kan. 81, 90 , 766 P.2d 147 (1988); Tersiner v. Gretencord, 17 Kan. | 1 | 2022–2022 |
Kennedy v. City of Sawyer
green
2 sentences2021Our courts' discussions on the one-action rule find their origins in Kennedy v. City of Sawyer, 228 Kan. 439, 460-61 , 618 P.2d 788 (1980). 2021Our courts' discussions on the one-action rule find their origins in Kennedy v. City of Sawyer, 228 Kan. 439, 460-61 , 618 P.2d 788 (1980). | 1 | 2021–2021 |
Ellis v. Union Pacific Railroad
green
1 sentence2021If a plaintiff chooses to forgo recovery from other tortfeasors, a settling defendant has no claim to settle but his or her own. 231 Kan. at 192 . 6 In Mathis v. TG & Y, 242 Kan. 789 , 751 P.2d 136 (1988), our Supreme Court began to step away from the narrow boundaries it created in the one-action rule. | 1 | 2021–2021 |
Brown v. Keill
green
2 sentences2010Brown v. Keill, 224 Kan. 195, 207 , 580 P.2d 867 (1978). *425 “In Teepak, Inc. v. Learned, 237 Kan. 320 , 699 P.2d 35 (1985), the Supreme Court applied the one-action rule to successive tortfeasors. 2010Brown v. Keill, 224 Kan. 195, 207 , 580 P.2d 867 (1978). *425 “In Teepak, Inc. v. Learned, 237 Kan. 320 , 699 P.2d 35 (1985), the Supreme Court applied the one-action rule to successive tortfeasors. | 1 | 2010–2010 |
Gaulden v. Burlington Northern, Inc.
green
2 sentences1992Gaulden v. Burlington Northern, Inc., 232 Kan. 205 , 654 P.2d 383 (1982), is best known for establishing the right to “compared *554 implied indemnity in FELA cases.” Gaulden also clearly establishes that, in a FELA case, the causal fault or negligence of all parties, including the contributory negligence of the plaintiff and the negligence of the carrier and any third parties, should be submitted to the jury and the percentage of fault of each determined in one lawsuit. 232 Kan. 205 , Syl. ¶ 4. 1992Gaulden v. Burlington Northern, Inc., 232 Kan. 205 , 654 P.2d 383 (1982), is best known for establishing the right to “compared *554 implied indemnity in FELA cases.” Gaulden also clearly establishes that, in a FELA case, the causal fault or negligence of all parties, including the contributory negligence of the plaintiff and the negligence of the carrier and any third parties, should be submitted to the jury and the percentage of fault of each determined in one lawsuit. 232 Kan. 205 , Syl. ¶ 4. | 1 | 1992–1992 |
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.