clear statement rule in Kansas

2005This leads us to a strict application of the wording of K.S.A. 1995 Supp. 44-556(a) and the dismissal of this appeal as untimely. *831 “[W]e are back to the clear statement and rule of Bushman Construction Co. v. Schumacher, 187 Kan. 359, 362 , 356 P.2d 869 (1960), which states: ‘Our decisions are replete that the Workmen’s Compensation Act undertook to cover every phase of the right to compensation and of the procedure for obtaining it, which is substantial, complete and exclusive, and we must look to the procedure of the act for the methods of its administration.

2005This leads us to a strict application of the wording of K.S.A. 1995 Supp. 44-556(a) and the dismissal of this appeal as untimely. *831 “[W]e are back to the clear statement and rule of Bushman Construction Co. v. Schumacher, 187 Kan. 359, 362 , 356 P.2d 869 (1960), which states: ‘Our decisions are replete that the Workmen’s Compensation Act undertook to cover every phase of the right to compensation and of the procedure for obtaining it, which is substantial, complete and exclusive, and we must look to the procedure of the act for the methods of its administration.

1992The Kansas Supreme Court cited Bank v. Jesch, 99 Kan. 797 , 163 Pac. 150 (1917), and said: “The decision is a clear statement of the rule that even if a tenant is under the duty, by the terms of his lease, to sow a crop which does not mature until after his lease expires, he is not by that fact alone entitled to harvest the crop.” 166 Kan. at 540 .

1969(Woodmancy v. Brady, 176 Kan. 522 , 271 P. 2d 288 .) In Fox v. Flick, 166 Kan. 533 , 203 P. 2d 186 , it was stated at page 540; “The decision [referring to Bank v. Jesch, supra,] is a clear statement of the rule that even if a tenant is under the duty, by the terms of his lease, to sow a crop which does not mature until after his lease expires, he is not by that fact alone entitled to harvest the crop.

1998As a result, the four-part test of Ruse is overruled.” Love, 13 Kan.

1998Rules and methods provided by the code of civil procedure not included in the act itself are not available in determining rights thereunder.’ “Such a result is consistent with the rule that where a statute provides for an appeal, the appeal is govémed by that statute rather than general statutes concerning the right to an appeal. [Citation omitted.]” 260 Kan. at 557 .

1992The Kansas Supreme Court cited Bank v. Jesch, 99 Kan. 797 , 163 Pac. 150 (1917), and said: “The decision is a clear statement of the rule that even if a tenant is under the duty, by the terms of his lease, to sow a crop which does not mature until after his lease expires, he is not by that fact alone entitled to harvest the crop.” 166 Kan. at 540 .

1992The Kansas Supreme Court cited Bank v. Jesch, 99 Kan. 797 , 163 Pac. 150 (1917), and said: “The decision is a clear statement of the rule that even if a tenant is under the duty, by the terms of his lease, to sow a crop which does not mature until after his lease expires, he is not by that fact alone entitled to harvest the crop.” 166 Kan. at 540 .

1969(Woodmancy v. Brady, 176 Kan. 522 , 271 P. 2d 288 .) In Fox v. Flick, 166 Kan. 533 , 203 P. 2d 186 , it was stated at page 540; “The decision [referring to Bank v. Jesch, supra,] is a clear statement of the rule that even if a tenant is under the duty, by the terms of his lease, to sow a crop which does not mature until after his lease expires, he is not by that fact alone entitled to harvest the crop.

1969(Woodmancy v. Brady, 176 Kan. 522 , 271 P. 2d 288 .) In Fox v. Flick, 166 Kan. 533 , 203 P. 2d 186 , it was stated at page 540; “The decision [referring to Bank v. Jesch, supra,] is a clear statement of the rule that even if a tenant is under the duty, by the terms of his lease, to sow a crop which does not mature until after his lease expires, he is not by that fact alone entitled to harvest the crop.

1967The Supreme Court of Utah made a clear statement of the rule in State v. Graham, 23 Utah, 278 , 64 Pac. 557 , where it was said: “. . .

1967The Supreme Court of Utah made a clear statement of the rule in State v. Graham, 23 Utah, 278 , 64 Pac. 557 , where it was said: “. . .

1918A clear statement of the rule of law governing the recovery of damages under such cir cumstances is found in Corley v. Railway Co., 90 Kan. 70 , 133 Pac. 555 , as follows; “Thl question presented is whether he is to be deemed chargeable with the negligence of the driver.

1918A clear statement of the rule of law governing the recovery of damages under such cir cumstances is found in Corley v. Railway Co., 90 Kan. 70 , 133 Pac. 555 , as follows; “Thl question presented is whether he is to be deemed chargeable with the negligence of the driver.