8 Kansas opinions name it 2 courts 1895–2022 1 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 |
|---|---|---|
Young v. Younggreen2 sentences1992Id., 507 Pa. at 47-50 , 488 A.2d at 267-69 (emphasis added).” 396 Pa. Super, at 170-71. 1992Id., 507 Pa. at 47-50 , 488 A.2d at 267-69 (emphasis added).” 396 Pa. Super, at 170-71. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Kansas. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
In Re the Appeal of University of Kansas School of Medicine
green
1 sentence2022The concept that ownership is a deserving of consideration in the exemption inquiry also finds its support in caselaw as evidenced by In re Tax Appeal of Univ. of Kansas School of Medicine, 266 Kan. 737 . | 1 | 2022–2022 |
Fowler v. Fowler
green
1 sentence1992Id., 507 Pa. at 47-50 , 488 A.2d at 267-69 (emphasis added).” 396 Pa. Super, at 170-71. | 1 | 1992–1992 |
State Ex Rel. the Cragor Company v. Doss
neutral
2 sentences1976The Cragor Company v. Doss, 150 Fla. 491 , 8 So. 2d 17 , a four-to-three decision, the majority approved the partial exemption rule without discussion, as being supported by “the best reasoned authority in this country.” It went on to say: “. . . 1976The Cragor Company v. Doss, 150 Fla. 491 , 8 So. 2d 17 , a four-to-three decision, the majority approved the partial exemption rule without discussion, as being supported by “the best reasoned authority in this country.” It went on to say: “. . . | 1 | 1976–1976 |
Board of County Commissioners v. Rural High School District No. 4
neutral
2 sentences1937S. Dist., 145 Kan. 399 , 65 P. 2d 574 .) It is further admitted that as the claim of plaintiff was not presented as provided in the cash-basis statute it is barred, unless saved by the exemption clause in G. 1937S. Dist., 145 Kan. 399 , 65 P. 2d 574 .) It is further admitted that as the claim of plaintiff was not presented as provided in the cash-basis statute it is barred, unless saved by the exemption clause in G. | 1 | 1937–1937 |
Wheeler v. Weightman
green
2 sentences1931The subject was considered in the opinion in the case of Wheeler v. Weightman, 96 Kan. 50 , 149 Pac. 977 , and all the decisions were collated to that time. 1931The subject was considered in the opinion in the case of Wheeler v. Weightman, 96 Kan. 50 , 149 Pac. 977 , and all the decisions were collated to that time. | 1 | 1931–1931 |
Bequillard v. Bartlett
green
1 sentence1920(Bequillard v. Bartlett, 19 Kan. 382 , Syl. ¶ 4.) It has been held that the finished cheeses made by a cheesemaker herself were exempt from attachment, as well as the equipment necessary for making them. | 1 | 1920–1920 |
Staak v. Sigelkow
neutral
1 sentence1909(Adams Express Co. v. Boskowitz et al., 107 Ill. 660 .) Among the many cases showing that the question involved is one of identity of parties, and that parol proof is admissible to show to whom the provisions of the contract applied and upon whom its obligations rested, the following may be cited: Staak v. Sigelkow, 12 Wis. 234 ; Armstrong v. Andrews, 109 Mich. 537 , 67 N. W. 567 ; Simons v. Marshall, 3 Iowa, 502 ; First National Bank v. North, 2 S. Dak. 480, 51 N. W. 96 ; Nixon v. Cobleigh, 52 Ill. 387 ; Hogan v. Wallace, 166 Ill. 328 , 46 N. E. 1136 ; Haskell v. Tukesbury, 92 Maine, 551, 43 | 1 | 1909–1909 |
Armstrong v. Andrews
green
2 sentences1909(Adams Express Co. v. Boskowitz et al., 107 Ill. 660 .) Among the many cases showing that the question involved is one of identity of parties, and that parol proof is admissible to show to whom the provisions of the contract applied and upon whom its obligations rested, the following may be cited: Staak v. Sigelkow, 12 Wis. 234 ; Armstrong v. Andrews, 109 Mich. 537 , 67 N. W. 567 ; Simons v. Marshall, 3 Iowa, 502 ; First National Bank v. North, 2 S. Dak. 480, 51 N. W. 96 ; Nixon v. Cobleigh, 52 Ill. 387 ; Hogan v. Wallace, 166 Ill. 328 , 46 N. E. 1136 ; Haskell v. Tukesbury, 92 Maine, 551, 43 1909(Adams Express Co. v. Boskowitz et al., 107 Ill. 660 .) Among the many cases showing that the question involved is one of identity of parties, and that parol proof is admissible to show to whom the provisions of the contract applied and upon whom its obligations rested, the following may be cited: Staak v. Sigelkow, 12 Wis. 234 ; Armstrong v. Andrews, 109 Mich. 537 , 67 N. W. 567 ; Simons v. Marshall, 3 Iowa, 502 ; First National Bank v. North, 2 S. Dak. 480, 51 N. W. 96 ; Nixon v. Cobleigh, 52 Ill. 387 ; Hogan v. Wallace, 166 Ill. 328 , 46 N. E. 1136 ; Haskell v. Tukesbury, 92 Maine, 551, 43 | 1 | 1909–1909 |
First National Bank v. North
neutral
1 sentence1909(Adams Express Co. v. Boskowitz et al., 107 Ill. 660 .) Among the many cases showing that the question involved is one of identity of parties, and that parol proof is admissible to show to whom the provisions of the contract applied and upon whom its obligations rested, the following may be cited: Staak v. Sigelkow, 12 Wis. 234 ; Armstrong v. Andrews, 109 Mich. 537 , 67 N. W. 567 ; Simons v. Marshall, 3 Iowa, 502 ; First National Bank v. North, 2 S. Dak. 480, 51 N. W. 96 ; Nixon v. Cobleigh, 52 Ill. 387 ; Hogan v. Wallace, 166 Ill. 328 , 46 N. E. 1136 ; Haskell v. Tukesbury, 92 Maine, 551, 43 | 1 | 1909–1909 |
Nixon v. Cobleigh
neutral
1 sentence1909(Adams Express Co. v. Boskowitz et al., 107 Ill. 660 .) Among the many cases showing that the question involved is one of identity of parties, and that parol proof is admissible to show to whom the provisions of the contract applied and upon whom its obligations rested, the following may be cited: Staak v. Sigelkow, 12 Wis. 234 ; Armstrong v. Andrews, 109 Mich. 537 , 67 N. W. 567 ; Simons v. Marshall, 3 Iowa, 502 ; First National Bank v. North, 2 S. Dak. 480, 51 N. W. 96 ; Nixon v. Cobleigh, 52 Ill. 387 ; Hogan v. Wallace, 166 Ill. 328 , 46 N. E. 1136 ; Haskell v. Tukesbury, 92 Maine, 551, 43 | 1 | 1909–1909 |
Adams Express Co. v. Boskowitz
neutral
1 sentence1909(Adams Express Co. v. Boskowitz et al., 107 Ill. 660 .) Among the many cases showing that the question involved is one of identity of parties, and that parol proof is admissible to show to whom the provisions of the contract applied and upon whom its obligations rested, the following may be cited: Staak v. Sigelkow, 12 Wis. 234 ; Armstrong v. Andrews, 109 Mich. 537 , 67 N. W. 567 ; Simons v. Marshall, 3 Iowa, 502 ; First National Bank v. North, 2 S. Dak. 480, 51 N. W. 96 ; Nixon v. Cobleigh, 52 Ill. 387 ; Hogan v. Wallace, 166 Ill. 328 , 46 N. E. 1136 ; Haskell v. Tukesbury, 92 Maine, 551, 43 | 1 | 1909–1909 |
Hogan v. Wallace
neutral
2 sentences1909(Adams Express Co. v. Boskowitz et al., 107 Ill. 660 .) Among the many cases showing that the question involved is one of identity of parties, and that parol proof is admissible to show to whom the provisions of the contract applied and upon whom its obligations rested, the following may be cited: Staak v. Sigelkow, 12 Wis. 234 ; Armstrong v. Andrews, 109 Mich. 537 , 67 N. W. 567 ; Simons v. Marshall, 3 Iowa, 502 ; First National Bank v. North, 2 S. Dak. 480, 51 N. W. 96 ; Nixon v. Cobleigh, 52 Ill. 387 ; Hogan v. Wallace, 166 Ill. 328 , 46 N. E. 1136 ; Haskell v. Tukesbury, 92 Maine, 551, 43 1909(Adams Express Co. v. Boskowitz et al., 107 Ill. 660 .) Among the many cases showing that the question involved is one of identity of parties, and that parol proof is admissible to show to whom the provisions of the contract applied and upon whom its obligations rested, the following may be cited: Staak v. Sigelkow, 12 Wis. 234 ; Armstrong v. Andrews, 109 Mich. 537 , 67 N. W. 567 ; Simons v. Marshall, 3 Iowa, 502 ; First National Bank v. North, 2 S. Dak. 480, 51 N. W. 96 ; Nixon v. Cobleigh, 52 Ill. 387 ; Hogan v. Wallace, 166 Ill. 328 , 46 N. E. 1136 ; Haskell v. Tukesbury, 92 Maine, 551, 43 | 1 | 1909–1909 |
Haskell v. Tukesbury
neutral
1 sentence1909(Adams Express Co. v. Boskowitz et al., 107 Ill. 660 .) Among the many cases showing that the question involved is one of identity of parties, and that parol proof is admissible to show to whom the provisions of the contract applied and upon whom its obligations rested, the following may be cited: Staak v. Sigelkow, 12 Wis. 234 ; Armstrong v. Andrews, 109 Mich. 537 , 67 N. W. 567 ; Simons v. Marshall, 3 Iowa, 502 ; First National Bank v. North, 2 S. Dak. 480, 51 N. W. 96 ; Nixon v. Cobleigh, 52 Ill. 387 ; Hogan v. Wallace, 166 Ill. 328 , 46 N. E. 1136 ; Haskell v. Tukesbury, 92 Maine, 551, 43 | 1 | 1909–1909 |
Raver v. Webster
green
1 sentence1909(Adams Express Co. v. Boskowitz et al., 107 Ill. 660 .) Among the many cases showing that the question involved is one of identity of parties, and that parol proof is admissible to show to whom the provisions of the contract applied and upon whom its obligations rested, the following may be cited: Staak v. Sigelkow, 12 Wis. 234 ; Armstrong v. Andrews, 109 Mich. 537 , 67 N. W. 567 ; Simons v. Marshall, 3 Iowa, 502 ; First National Bank v. North, 2 S. Dak. 480, 51 N. W. 96 ; Nixon v. Cobleigh, 52 Ill. 387 ; Hogan v. Wallace, 166 Ill. 328 , 46 N. E. 1136 ; Haskell v. Tukesbury, 92 Maine, 551, 43 | 1 | 1909–1909 |
Edwards v. Kearzey
green
1 sentence1895Edwards v. Kearzey, 96 U. S. 595 , involved the validity of the exemption clause in the North Carolina constitution of 1868. | 1 | 1895–1895 |
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.