day hearing in Kansas

2024In explaining its reliance on In re Estate of Reed, 157 Kan. 602 , 142 P.2d 824 (1943), the Rickabaugh court stated: "In Reed, no action was taken in probate between the day the petition was filed in probate court, September 14, 1939, and the day that a waiver of notice of hearing petition was filed, January 24, 1941.

2024In explaining its reliance on In re Estate of Reed, 157 Kan. 602 , 142 P.2d 824 (1943), the Rickabaugh court stated: "In Reed, no action was taken in probate between the day the petition was filed in probate court, September 14, 1939, and the day that a waiver of notice of hearing petition was filed, January 24, 1941.

2011The motion cited Padilla v. Kentucky, 559 U.S. 356 , 130 S. Ct. 1473 , 176 L.

2011The motion cited Padilla v. Kentucky, 559 U.S. 356 , 130 S. Ct. 1473 , 176 L.

1995Another case which is closely analogous is McCall Pattern Co. v. Kansas Employment Security Bd. of Review, 238 Kan. 608 , 712 *617 P.2d 1266 (1986).

1992State v. Stewart, 243 Kan. 639 , Syl. ¶ 5, 763 P.2d 572 (1988). *626 When refusing to give Tyler s self-defense instruction, the trial court stated: • “Reviewing all of the statutes in the area and looking at the intent of the legislature as set out in those statutes, I will this day rule that the aggression from which one may defend one’s self or one’s home must be an unlawful aggression before that is available as a defense for the reason to escape punishment for the commission of a crime and is, therefore, under this set of facts, not available to Mr. Tyler.” When ruling on Tyler’s motion f

1992State v. Stewart, 243 Kan. 639 , Syl. ¶ 5, 763 P.2d 572 (1988). *626 When refusing to give Tyler s self-defense instruction, the trial court stated: • “Reviewing all of the statutes in the area and looking at the intent of the legislature as set out in those statutes, I will this day rule that the aggression from which one may defend one’s self or one’s home must be an unlawful aggression before that is available as a defense for the reason to escape punishment for the commission of a crime and is, therefore, under this set of facts, not available to Mr. Tyler.” When ruling on Tyler’s motion f

1962S. 1949, 44-523 provides that an award shall be made within thirty days from the time the matter is submitted, this court held in Ketchell v. Wilson & Co., 138 Kan. 97, 99 , 23 P. 2d 488 , that although the statute is designed to secure prompt action, it does not impose a time limitation upon the commissioner’s jurisdiction to make an award.” (p. 822.) ' And last, but not least, when the cause was finally submitted to the successor Director the findings and award of that official were filed on the very day the hearing was concluded, i. e., on August 8, 1961.

1962S. 1949, 44-523 provides that an award shall be made within thirty days from the time the matter is submitted, this court held in Ketchell v. Wilson & Co., 138 Kan. 97, 99 , 23 P. 2d 488 , that although the statute is designed to secure prompt action, it does not impose a time limitation upon the commissioner’s jurisdiction to make an award.” (p. 822.) ' And last, but not least, when the cause was finally submitted to the successor Director the findings and award of that official were filed on the very day the hearing was concluded, i. e., on August 8, 1961.

1951In the early case of Gray v. Ulrich, 8 Kan. 112 , it was held: “It is improper, aftez- a case has been continued, to set aside the continuance and dispose of the case in the absence of one party and on the application and in favor of the other.” (Syl. ¶ 2.) There is no doubt that under the law ordinarily a continuance is not a matter of right, but may be on such conditions as the court may impose, a phase not presently before us.

1948(Herd v. Chambers, 155 Kan. 55 , syl. ¶ 3, 122 P. 2d 734 .) We do note, however, that on the day the claim was filed, on claimant’s petition it was certified to the district court for trial.

1948(Herd v. Chambers, 155 Kan. 55 , syl. ¶ 3, 122 P. 2d 734 .) We do note, however, that on the day the claim was filed, on claimant’s petition it was certified to the district court for trial.

1891The decision which we now make with respect to the petition and notice does not contravene anything decided in the case of Mickel v. Hicks, 19 Kas. 578 . 6.