8 Kansas opinions name it 2 courts 1915–2024 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 |
|---|---|---|
Lester v. Magic Chef, Inc.green2 sentences1994“The defect may be (in the product’s preparation) (in the product’s container or packaging) (in the instructions or warning necessary for the product’s safe use).” This instruction defines “unreasonably dangerous” according to the “consumer expectation test.” The instruction is based on Lester v. Magic Chef, Inc., 230 Kan. 643 , 641 P.2d 353 (1982), a 4-3 decision. 1994“The defect may be (in the product’s preparation) (in the product’s container or packaging) (in the instructions or warning necessary for the product’s safe use).” This instruction defines “unreasonably dangerous” according to the “consumer expectation test.” The instruction is based on Lester v. Magic Chef, Inc., 230 Kan. 643 , 641 P.2d 353 (1982), a 4-3 decision. | 1 | 2 |
Robert C. Schell and Liberty Mutual Insurance Company v. Amf, Incorporated, and Third-Party v. Capital Bakers, Inc., Third-Partygreen2 sentences1983Even assuming the plaintiff s misuse of the baler could be viewed as “foreseeable,” the baler is not defective as a matter of law in the light of Lester v. Magic Chef, Inc., 230 Kan. 643, 647-48, 653 , 641 P.2d 353 (1982), where the court adopted the “consumer expectation test” for determining when a product is in a “defective condition unreasonably dangerous to the user or consumer.” That test requires that a product is not unreasonably dangerous if it is not “dangerous to an extent beyond that which would be contemplated by the ordinary consumer who purchases it, with the ordinary knowledge 1983Even assuming the plaintiff's misuse of the baler could be viewed as "foreseeable," the baler is not defective as a matter of law in the light of Lester v. Magic Chef, Inc., 230 Kan. 643, 647-48, 653 , 641 P.2d 353 (1982), where the court adopted the "consumer expectation test" for determining when a product is in a "defective condition unreasonably dangerous to the user or consumer." That test requires that a product is not unreasonably dangerous if it is not "dangerous to an extent beyond that which would be contemplated by the ordinary consumer who purchases it, with the ordinary knowledge | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Kansas. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
State v. Taylor
green
1 sentence2024In citing State v. Taylor, 314 Kan. 166 , 496 P.3d 526 (2021), which did not include an instructions challenge, and conducting its analysis as it did without considering each error's individual impact, the panel failed to appreciate its errors involved unpreserved instructional issues subject to K.S.A. 22-3414(3). | 1 | 2024–2024 |
State v. Franklin
green
2 sentences2006On appeal, the Franklin court stated the issue as “whether the trial court correctly held that the testimony elicited as to confusion over the instructions was inquiry into the mental processes of the jurors in the reaching of the verdict as prohibited by K.S.A. 60-441 or whether such testimony was juror misconduct having a material bearing on the validity of the verdict as permitted by K.S.A. 60-444(a).” 264 Kan. at 498-99 . 2006The Franklin court concluded that “the trial court correctly held that the testimony of the two jurors was improper under K.S.A. 60-444(a) as an effort to impeach the verdict by showing the mental processes by which the verdict was reached.” 264 Kan. at 504 . | 1 | 2006–2006 |
State v. Winters
green
2 sentences2005The Winters court found the instructions to be error, although not clear error. 276 Kan. at 41 . 2005The Winters court found the instructions to be error, although not clear error. 276 Kan. at 41 . | 1 | 2005–2005 |
Noel v. Pizza Management, Inc.
green
2 sentences1998In determining claims that a jury has been so inadequately or improperly instructed so as to require reversal and the grant of a new trial, we apply the general statements set forth in Noel v. Pizza Management, Inc., 258 Kan. 3, 12 , 899 P.2d 1013 (1995) (quoting Cerretti v. Flint Hills Rural Electric Co-op Ass’n, 251 Kan. 347, 353 , 837 P.2d 330 [1992]): “ ‘It is the duty of the trial court to properly instruct the jury upon a party’s theory of the case. 1998In determining claims that a jury has been so inadequately or improperly instructed so as to require reversal and the grant of a new trial, we apply the general statements set forth in Noel v. Pizza Management, Inc., 258 Kan. 3, 12 , 899 P.2d 1013 (1995) (quoting Cerretti v. Flint Hills Rural Electric Co-op Ass’n, 251 Kan. 347, 353 , 837 P.2d 330 [1992]): “ ‘It is the duty of the trial court to properly instruct the jury upon a party’s theory of the case. | 1 | 1998–1998 |
Cerretti v. Flint Hills Rural Electric Cooperative Ass'n
green
2 sentences1998In determining claims that a jury has been so inadequately or improperly instructed so as to require reversal and the grant of a new trial, we apply the general statements set forth in Noel v. Pizza Management, Inc., 258 Kan. 3, 12 , 899 P.2d 1013 (1995) (quoting Cerretti v. Flint Hills Rural Electric Co-op Ass’n, 251 Kan. 347, 353 , 837 P.2d 330 [1992]): “ ‘It is the duty of the trial court to properly instruct the jury upon a party’s theory of the case. 1998In determining claims that a jury has been so inadequately or improperly instructed so as to require reversal and the grant of a new trial, we apply the general statements set forth in Noel v. Pizza Management, Inc., 258 Kan. 3, 12 , 899 P.2d 1013 (1995) (quoting Cerretti v. Flint Hills Rural Electric Co-op Ass’n, 251 Kan. 347, 353 , 837 P.2d 330 [1992]): “ ‘It is the duty of the trial court to properly instruct the jury upon a party’s theory of the case. | 1 | 1998–1998 |
Verren v. City of Pittsburg
green
2 sentences1981Verren v. City of Pittsburg, 227 Kan. 259 , 607 P.2d 36 (1980). 1981Verren v. City of Pittsburg, 227 Kan. 259 , 607 P.2d 36 (1980). | 1 | 1981–1981 |
Kansas City, Mexico & Orient Railway Co. v. Loosley
green
2 sentences1915They are directly contrary to the ruling in Railway Co. v. Loosley, 76 Kan. 103 , 90 Pac. 990 , where it was held that: “If the servant in fact voluntarily chose to assume the risk of appreciated danger the prudence of his conduct is not open to investigation.” (Syl. ¶ 4.) • One of the instructions in which this error appears quotes largely from that portion of the opinion in the Loosley case, where some of the distinctions between contributory negligence and assumption of risk were pointed out and commented upon. 1915They are directly contrary to the ruling in Railway Co. v. Loosley, 76 Kan. 103 , 90 Pac. 990 , where it was held that: “If the servant in fact voluntarily chose to assume the risk of appreciated danger the prudence of his conduct is not open to investigation.” (Syl. ¶ 4.) • One of the instructions in which this error appears quotes largely from that portion of the opinion in the Loosley case, where some of the distinctions between contributory negligence and assumption of risk were pointed out and commented upon. | 1 | 1915–1915 |
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.