Already have an account? Sign in instead.
You stay signed in for 30 days on this browser.
Continue with Google Continue with MicrosoftNo account yet? Create a free one.
We sent a six-digit code.
It expires in ten minutes, works once, and only in this browser. Five wrong tries void it. Send another code.
Your account is live and the Cloudflare checks are off for this browser.
9 Kansas opinions name it 2 courts 1988–2024 2 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 |
|---|---|---|
Samsel v. Wheeler Transport Services, Inc.green2 sentences1994Congress’ belief that permitting states to regulate labeling and packaging of pesticides would interfere with its interest in uniform labeling and packaging requirements exclusively controlled by the EPA “can hardly be said to be irrational.” Kansas does recognize a quid pro quo requirement when rights under the Kansas Constitution are modified: “[T]he legislature, under its power to act for the general welfare, may alter common-law causes of action and constitutional rights if it provides an adequate quid pro quo.” Samsel v. Wheeler Transport Services, Inc., 246 Kan. 336, 361 , 789 P.2d 541 ( 1994Congress’ belief that permitting states to regulate labeling and packaging of pesticides would interfere with its interest in uniform labeling and packaging requirements exclusively controlled by the EPA “can hardly be said to be irrational.” Kansas does recognize a quid pro quo requirement when rights under the Kansas Constitution are modified: “[T]he legislature, under its power to act for the general welfare, may alter common-law causes of action and constitutional rights if it provides an adequate quid pro quo.” Samsel v. Wheeler Transport Services, Inc., 246 Kan. 336, 361 , 789 P.2d 541 ( | 2 | 5 |
Manzanares v. Bellgreen2 sentences2019"A quid pro quo analysis in Section 5 challenges to the legislature's limitations on recovery for personal injuries has been employed by this court in varied contexts, including workers compensation ( Rajala [ v. Doresky , 233 Kan. 440 , 661 P.2d 1251 (1983) ] ), no-fault automobile insurance coverage ( Manzanares [ v. Bell , 214 Kan. 589 , 522 P.2d 1291 (1974) ] ), medical malpractice ( Kansas Medical Malpractice Victims [ Coalition v. Bell , 243 Kan. 333 , 757 P.2d 251 (1988) ] ), and general tort litigation ( Samsel II ). 2019"A quid pro quo analysis in Section 5 challenges to the legislature's limitations on recovery for personal injuries has been employed by this court in varied contexts, including workers compensation ( Rajala [ v. Doresky , 233 Kan. 440 , 661 P.2d 1251 (1983) ] ), no-fault automobile insurance coverage ( Manzanares [ v. Bell , 214 Kan. 589 , 522 P.2d 1291 (1974) ] ), medical malpractice ( Kansas Medical Malpractice Victims [ Coalition v. Bell , 243 Kan. 333 , 757 P.2d 251 (1988) ] ), and general tort litigation ( Samsel II ). | 2 | 5 |
Bair v. Peckgreen2 sentences2019Step two of the quid pro quo analysis in the caselaw turns on whether " the legislature substituted an adequate statutory remedy for the modification to the individual right at issue." (Emphasis added.) Miller , 295 Kan. at 657 , 289 P.3d 1098 ; see Bair , 248 Kan. 824 , Syl ¶ 11, 811 P.2d 1176 ("The legislature can modify the common law so long as it provides an adequate substitute remedy for the right infringed or abolished." [Emphasis added.] ). 2019Step two of the quid pro quo analysis in the caselaw turns on whether " the legislature substituted an adequate statutory remedy for the modification to the individual right at issue." (Emphasis added.) Miller , 295 Kan. at 657 , 289 P.3d 1098 ; see Bair , 248 Kan. 824 , Syl ¶ 11, 811 P.2d 1176 ("The legislature can modify the common law so long as it provides an adequate substitute remedy for the right infringed or abolished." [Emphasis added.] ). | 2 | 4 |
Bonin v. Vannamangreen2 sentences2019See Miller , 295 Kan. at 661 , 289 P.3d 1098 (citing Bonin v. Vannaman , 261 Kan. 199 , 221, 929 P.2d 754 [ (1996) ] [holding statute of repose barring claims arising from tortious acts committed against minors not brought within 8 years of act did not violate 18-year-old plaintiff's section 18 rights when it barred her tort claims arising from medical malpractice allegedly committed 15 years earlier]; Rajala v. Doresky , 233 Kan. 440 , 442, 661 P.2d 1251 [ (1983) ] [holding statute barring civil action *537 against fellow employee for injury compensable under Workers Compensation Act did not 2019See Miller , 295 Kan. at 661 , 289 P.3d 1098 (citing Bonin v. Vannaman , 261 Kan. 199 , 221, 929 P.2d 754 [ (1996) ] [holding statute of repose barring claims arising from tortious acts committed against minors not brought within 8 years of act did not violate 18-year-old plaintiff's section 18 rights when it barred her tort claims arising from medical malpractice allegedly committed 15 years earlier]; Rajala v. Doresky , 233 Kan. 440 , 442, 661 P.2d 1251 [ (1983) ] [holding statute barring civil action *537 against fellow employee for injury compensable under Workers Compensation Act did not | 2 | 3 |
Lemuz Ex Rel. Lemuz v. Fiesergreen2 sentences2019See Bair v. Peck , 248 Kan. 824 , 844, 811 P.2d 1176 (1991) (Adequacy of the substitute remedy as it applies to comprehensive remedial legislation must be made on a case-by-case basis.); Lemuz v. Fieser , 261 Kan. 936 , Syl. ¶ 6, 933 P.2d 134 (1997) (In considering the adequacy of the quid pro quo of comprehensive legislation that substitutes a statutory remedy for one that formerly existed at common law, 'no hard and fast rule can apply to all cases.'). 2019See Bair v. Peck , 248 Kan. 824 , 844, 811 P.2d 1176 (1991) (Adequacy of the substitute remedy as it applies to comprehensive remedial legislation must be made on a case-by-case basis.); Lemuz v. Fieser , 261 Kan. 936 , Syl. ¶ 6, 933 P.2d 134 (1997) (In considering the adequacy of the quid pro quo of comprehensive legislation that substitutes a statutory remedy for one that formerly existed at common law, 'no hard and fast rule can apply to all cases.'). | 2 | 2 |
Rajala v. Doreskygreen2 sentences2019Rajala v. Doresky, 233 Kan. 440 , 661 P.2d 1251 (1983), is even weaker support for the Miller majority's application of a quid pro quo test for section 5 analysis. 2019Rajala v. Doresky, 233 Kan. 440 , 661 P.2d 1251 (1983), is even weaker support for the Miller majority's application of a quid pro quo test for section 5 analysis. | 2 | 2 |
Miller v. Johnsongreen2 sentences2019But the overlay of the quid pro quo test "transforms what the people made inviolate into something violable at will." 295 Kan. at 698 -99 , 289 P.3d 1098 (Beier, J., concurring in part and dissenting in part). 2019But the overlay of the quid pro quo test "transforms what the people made inviolate into something violable at will." 295 Kan. at 698 -99 , 289 P.3d 1098 (Beier, J., concurring in part and dissenting in part). | 1 | 3 |
Aves Ex Rel. Aves v. Shahgreen2 sentences2019See Miller , 295 Kan. at 663 , 289 P.3d 1098 (holding medical malpractice *542 insurance minimums mandated by state law provided substitute for limitation on noneconomic damages); Lemuz , 261 Kan. at 959 , 933 P.2d 134 (holding medical malpractice insurance minimums mandated by state law provided substitute for ban on corporate negligence claim against hospital providing staff privileges to tortfeasor-doctor); Aves , 258 Kan. at 523 -24 , 906 P.2d 642 (holding medical malpractice minimums mandated by state law provided substitute remedy for bar on bad-faith refusal claims against state-run exc 2019See Miller , 295 Kan. at 663 , 289 P.3d 1098 (holding medical malpractice *542 insurance minimums mandated by state law provided substitute for limitation on noneconomic damages); Lemuz , 261 Kan. at 959 , 933 P.2d 134 (holding medical malpractice insurance minimums mandated by state law provided substitute for ban on corporate negligence claim against hospital providing staff privileges to tortfeasor-doctor); Aves , 258 Kan. at 523 -24 , 906 P.2d 642 (holding medical malpractice minimums mandated by state law provided substitute remedy for bar on bad-faith refusal claims against state-run exc | 1 | 3 |
Kansas Malpractice Victims Coalition v. Bellgreen2 sentences2019"A quid pro quo analysis in Section 5 challenges to the legislature's limitations on recovery for personal injuries has been employed by this court in varied contexts, including workers compensation ( Rajala [ v. Doresky , 233 Kan. 440 , 661 P.2d 1251 (1983) ] ), no-fault automobile insurance coverage ( Manzanares [ v. Bell , 214 Kan. 589 , 522 P.2d 1291 (1974) ] ), medical malpractice ( Kansas Medical Malpractice Victims [ Coalition v. Bell , 243 Kan. 333 , 757 P.2d 251 (1988) ] ), and general tort litigation ( Samsel II ). 2019"A quid pro quo analysis in Section 5 challenges to the legislature's limitations on recovery for personal injuries has been employed by this court in varied contexts, including workers compensation ( Rajala [ v. Doresky , 233 Kan. 440 , 661 P.2d 1251 (1983) ] ), no-fault automobile insurance coverage ( Manzanares [ v. Bell , 214 Kan. 589 , 522 P.2d 1291 (1974) ] ), medical malpractice ( Kansas Medical Malpractice Victims [ Coalition v. Bell , 243 Kan. 333 , 757 P.2d 251 (1988) ] ), and general tort litigation ( Samsel II ). | 1 | 3 |
Hilburn v. Enerpipe, Ltd.green2 sentences2024In so doing, this court applied the quid pro quo test to section 5 and held that K.S.A. 60-19a02's modification of the right to a jury trial, which includes the right of a jury to determine an individual's damages, was permissible. 52 Kan. 2019Believing itself bound by the precedent of Miller , the panel summarily declined Hilburn's invitation to reexamine the threshold legal issue of whether the quid pro quo test should apply to section 5. 52 Kan. | 1 | 2 |
State v. Mitchellgreen2 sentences2021See State v. Mitchell, 297 Kan. 118, 124-25 , 298 P.3d 349 (2013) (change in the law acts prospectively, applying "'to all cases . . . pending on direct review or not yet final'"). 2021See State v. Mitchell, 297 Kan. 118, 124-25 , 298 P.3d 349 (2013) (change in the law acts prospectively, applying "'to all cases . . . pending on direct review or not yet final'"). | 1 | 1 |
Watts ex rel. Watts v. Lester E. Cox Medical Centersgreen1 sentence2012See Watts, 2012 WL 3101657, at *11 (overruling Adams v. Childrens Mercy Hosp., 832 S.W.2d 898 [Mo. 1992]; striking down damages cap for violating right to jury trial). | 1 | 1 |
Adams v. Children's Mercy Hospitalgreen1 sentence2012See Watts, 2012 WL 3101657, at *11 (overruling Adams v. Childrens Mercy Hosp., 832 S.W.2d 898 [Mo. 1992]; striking down damages cap for violating right to jury trial). | 1 | 1 |
Moore v. Mobile Infirmary Ass'ngreen1 sentence2012See Moore, 592 So. 2d at 159-65 (right to jury trial “inviolate”); Evans ex rel. | 1 | 1 |
Minnesota v. Clover Leaf Creamery Co.green2 sentences2012See Minnesota v. Clover Leaf Creamery Co., 449 U.S. 456, 464 , 101 S. Ct. 715 , 66 L. 2012See Minnesota v. Clover Leaf Creamery Co., 449 U.S. 456, 464 , 101 S. Ct. 715 , 66 L. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Kansas. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Rhoten v. Dickson
green
2 sentences2019In general, a "court of last resort will follow the rule of law it established in its earlier cases unless clearly convinced the rule was originally erroneous or is no longer sound because of changing conditions and more good than harm will come by departing from precedent." Rhoten v. Dickson , 290 Kan. 92 , 112, 223 P.3d 786 (2010). 2019In general, a "court of last resort will follow the rule of law it established in its earlier cases unless clearly convinced the rule was originally erroneous or is no longer sound because of changing conditions and more good than harm will come by departing from precedent." Rhoten v. Dickson , 290 Kan. 92 , 112, 223 P.3d 786 (2010). | 2 | 2012–2019 |
Hilburn v. Enerpipe Ltd.
green
1 sentence2021After Arnett's petition for review had been granted and while review was pending, however, we issued our decision in Hilburn v. Enerpipe Ltd., 309 Kan. 1127 , 1135-44, 1150, 442 P.3d 509 (2019) (plurality opinion), in which a majority of this court abrogated the quid pro quo test for section 5 challenges. | 1 | 2021–2021 |
Shade v. Ash Grove Lime & Portland Cement Co.
green
2 sentences2019In addition, application of a quid pro quo test to section 5 claims cannot be bolstered by reaching still farther back to Shade v. Cement Co. , 93 Kan. 257 , 144 P. 249 (1914). " Shade involved multiple constitutional challenges to the original workers compensation law. 2019In addition, application of a quid pro quo test to section 5 claims cannot be bolstered by reaching still farther back to Shade v. Cement Co. , 93 Kan. 257 , 144 P. 249 (1914). " Shade involved multiple constitutional challenges to the original workers compensation law. | 1 | 2019–2019 |
Kansas City Power & Light Co. v. State Corp. Commission
neutral
1 sentence2019App. 2d at 544 , 371 P.3d 923 . | 1 | 2019–2019 |
Duke Power Co. v. Carolina Environmental Study Group, Inc.
green
2 sentences1994Study Group, 438 U.S. 59 , 88 n.32, 57 L. 1994Study Group, 438 U.S. 59 , 88 n.32, 57 L. | 1 | 1994–1994 |
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.