8 Kansas opinions name it 2 courts 1988–2020 0 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 |
|---|---|---|
Dougan v. Rossville Drainage Districtgreen2 sentences2020See Thomas, 293 Kan. at 236 (discretionary function immunity does not shield choice among 17 available options that violates legal duty); Dougan v. Rossville Drainage Dist., 243 Kan. 315, 322 , 757 P.2d 272 (1988) ("The governmental agency cannot properly claim that its challenged action falls within the discretionary function exception where the action taken violated a legal duty."); Schreiner v. Hodge, 55 Kan. 2020See Thomas, 293 Kan. at 236 (discretionary function immunity does not shield choice among 17 available options that violates legal duty); Dougan v. Rossville Drainage Dist., 243 Kan. 315, 322 , 757 P.2d 272 (1988) ("The governmental agency cannot properly claim that its challenged action falls within the discretionary function exception where the action taken violated a legal duty."); Schreiner v. Hodge, 55 Kan. | 2 | 3 |
State v. Ransomgreen2 sentences1993The governmental agency cannot properly claim that its challenged action falls within the discretionary function exception where the action taken violated a legal duty." 234 Kan. at 322. 1993The governmental agency cannot properly claim that its challenged action falls within the discretionary function exception where the action taken violated a legal duty.” 234 Kan. at 322. | 2 | 2 |
Thomas v. COUNTY COM'RS OF SHAWNEE COUNTYgreen1 sentence2020See Thomas, 293 Kan. at 236 (discretionary function immunity does not shield choice among 17 available options that violates legal duty); Dougan v. Rossville Drainage Dist., 243 Kan. 315, 322 , 757 P.2d 272 (1988) ("The governmental agency cannot properly claim that its challenged action falls within the discretionary function exception where the action taken violated a legal duty."); Schreiner v. Hodge, 55 Kan. | 1 | 1 |
Nero v. Kansas State Universitygreen2 sentences2001A governmental agency cannot properly claim that its challenged action falls within the discretionary function exception where the action taken violates a legal duty. 253 Kan. at 587 . *264 The trial court found the defendants owed a general duty of care to students under their care and were, therefore, not qualified for protection under K.S.A. 75-6104(e). 2001See Nero v. Kansas State University, 253 Kan. 567, 587 , 861 P.2d 768 (1993). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Kansas. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
CJW v. State
green
1 sentence1993The governmental agency cannot properly claim that its challenged action falls within the discretionary function exception where the action taken violated a legal duty.” 253 Kan. 1 , Syl. ¶¶ 3, 4, 5, 7. | 1 | 1993–1993 |
Cansler v. State
green
2 sentences1988In Cansler v. State, 234 Kan. 554 , 675 P.2d 57 (1984), Cansler was a police officer who sustained serious injuries when he was shot by prison escapees. 1988In Cansler v. State, 234 Kan. 554 , 675 P.2d 57 (1984), Cansler was a police officer who sustained serious injuries when he was shot by prison escapees. | 1 | 1988–1988 |
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.