Jersey rule in Kansas

8 Kansas opinions name it 2 courts 1916–2013 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.

Followed or applied (1)

Case	Followed	Cited
Parodi v. Washoe Medical Center, Inc.green nev · 1995 · cited in 1 Kansas opinions naming this issue, 2013–2013 2 sentences 2013See also Parodi v. Washoe Medical Ctr., 111 Nev. 365, 370-71 , 892 P.2d 588 (1995) (holding that “error-in-judgment” instruction given “may confuse jurors into focusing on the health care provider s subjective intentions and judgments rather than on the real issue of whether the health care provider s conduct conformed to an objective standard of care”). 2013See also Parodi v. Washoe Medical Ctr., 111 Nev. 365, 370-71 , 892 P.2d 588 (1995) (holding that “error-in-judgment” instruction given “may confuse jurors into focusing on the health care provider s subjective intentions and judgments rather than on the real issue of whether the health care provider s conduct conformed to an objective standard of care”).	1	1

Distinguished, questioned or overruled (0)

Case	Negative	Cited
No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Kansas. Read the followed side critically anyway.

Also cited on this issue (15)

Case	Cited	Years
Keith v. Eaton green kan · 1897 2 sentences 1974To apply the New Jersey rule would contravene the law of Kansas under the rule of Keith v. Eaton, 58 Kan. 732 , 51 Pac. 271 , that application can not be made. . . (pp. 333, 334.) 731 A later statement of the rule is found in Purl v. Purl, 108 Kan. 673 , 197 Pac. 185 , where the court said: “When the will was executed and when the testator died, he resided in the state of Illinois. 1974To apply the New Jersey rule would contravene the law of Kansas under the rule of Keith v. Eaton, 58 Kan. 732 , 51 Pac. 271 , that application can not be made. . . (pp. 333, 334.) 731 A later statement of the rule is found in Purl v. Purl, 108 Kan. 673 , 197 Pac. 185 , where the court said: “When the will was executed and when the testator died, he resided in the state of Illinois.	2	1916–1974
Campbell-Leonard Realtors v. El Matador Apartment Co. green kan · 1976 2 sentences 2012Similar to the New Jersey standard, this court has held that a real estate broker is entitled to a commission if he or she is “the efficient and procuring cause of a consummated sale.” Campbell-Leonard Realtors v. El Matador Apartment Co., 220 Kan. 659 , Syl. ¶ 1, 556 P.2d 459 (1976). 2012Similar to the New Jersey standard, this court has held that a real estate broker is entitled to a commission if he or she is “the efficient and procuring cause of a consummated sale.” Campbell-Leonard Realtors v. El Matador Apartment Co., 220 Kan. 659 , Syl. ¶ 1, 556 P.2d 459 (1976).	1	2012–2012
Edelstein v. Wilentz green ca3 · 1987 1 sentence 1992The court determined that there was no fundamental right involved and analyzed the classification under a rational relationship standard. 812 F.2d at 132 .	1	1992–1992
State v. Ternaku green njsuperctappdiv · 1978 1 sentence 1984Adoption of the New Jersey rule as clarified in Wells is not inconsistent with the holding in State v. White, 234 Kan. 340 , in which our Supreme Court quoted extensively from State v. Ternaku, 156 N.J.	1	1984–1984
State v. White green kan · 1983 1 sentence 1984Adoption of the New Jersey rule as clarified in Wells is not inconsistent with the holding in State v. White, 234 Kan. 340 , in which our Supreme Court quoted extensively from State v. Ternaku, 156 N.J.	1	1984–1984
State v. Wells green njsuperctappdiv · 1982 1 sentence 1984State v. Wells, 186 N.J.	1	1984–1984
Crifasi v. Governing Body of Borough of Oakland green njsuperctappdiv · 1978 2 sentences 1983Defendant-appellant Stoller, on the other hand, relies upon the so-called New Jersey rule as set forth in Crifasi v. Governing Body of Oakland, 156 N.J. 1983Super. 182 , 383 A.2d 736 (1978).	1	1983–1983
Breeding v. Anderson green tex · 1953 2 sentences 1974In addition to New Jersey the states which follow, the New Jersey rule are: California, Abrams v. Guston, 110 Cal. App. 2d 556 , 243 P. 2d 109 ; DeMetre v. Savas, 93 Ohio App. 367 , 113 N. E. 2d 902 ; Washington, Grammer v. Skagit Valley Lumber Co., 162 Wash. 677 , 299 Pac. 376 ; Texas, Breeding v. Anderson, 152 Tex. 92 , 254 S. W. 2d 377 ; Hall v. Hard, 335 S. W. 2d 584 ; Arizona, Bonasera v. Roffe, 8 Ariz. App. 1 , 442 P. 2d 165 . 1974In addition to New Jersey the states which follow, the New Jersey rule are: California, Abrams v. Guston, 110 Cal. App. 2d 556 , 243 P. 2d 109 ; DeMetre v. Savas, 93 Ohio App. 367 , 113 N. E. 2d 902 ; Washington, Grammer v. Skagit Valley Lumber Co., 162 Wash. 677 , 299 Pac. 376 ; Texas, Breeding v. Anderson, 152 Tex. 92 , 254 S. W. 2d 377 ; Hall v. Hard, 335 S. W. 2d 584 ; Arizona, Bonasera v. Roffe, 8 Ariz. App. 1 , 442 P. 2d 165 .	1	1974–1974
Hall v. Hard green tex · 1960 2 sentences 1974In addition to New Jersey the states which follow, the New Jersey rule are: California, Abrams v. Guston, 110 Cal. App. 2d 556 , 243 P. 2d 109 ; DeMetre v. Savas, 93 Ohio App. 367 , 113 N. E. 2d 902 ; Washington, Grammer v. Skagit Valley Lumber Co., 162 Wash. 677 , 299 Pac. 376 ; Texas, Breeding v. Anderson, 152 Tex. 92 , 254 S. W. 2d 377 ; Hall v. Hard, 335 S. W. 2d 584 ; Arizona, Bonasera v. Roffe, 8 Ariz. App. 1 , 442 P. 2d 165 . 1974In addition to New Jersey the states which follow the New Jersey rule are: California, Abrams v. Guston, 110 Cal. App.2d 556 , 243 P.2d 109 ; DeMetre v. Savas, 93 Ohio App. 367 , 113 N.E.2d 902 ; Washington, Grammer v. Skagit Valley Lumber Co., 162 Wash. 677 , 299 Pac. 376 ; Texas, Breeding v. Anderson, 152 Tex. 92 , 254 S.W.2d *676 377; Hall v. Hard, 335 S.W.2d 584 ; Arizona, Bonasera v. Roffe, 8 Ariz. App. 1 , 442 P.2d 165 .	1	1974–1974
Kenney v. Paterson Milk & Cream Co. green · 1933 2 sentences 1974The majority rule adopted in the United States has become known as the New Jersey rule and is based upon Kenney v. Paterson Milk & Cream Co., 110 N.J.L. 141 , 164 A. 274 . 1974The majority rule adopted in the United States has become known as the New Jersey rule and is based upon Kenney v. Paterson Milk & Cream Co., 110 N.J.L. 141 , 164 A. 274 .	1	1974–1974
Purl v. Purl green kan · 1921 2 sentences 1974To apply the New Jersey rule would contravene the law of Kansas under the rule of Keith v. Eaton, 58 Kan. 732 , 51 Pac. 271 , that application can not be made. . . (pp. 333, 334.) 731 A later statement of the rule is found in Purl v. Purl, 108 Kan. 673 , 197 Pac. 185 , where the court said: “When the will was executed and when the testator died, he resided in the state of Illinois. 1974To apply the New Jersey rule would contravene the law of Kansas under the rule of Keith v. Eaton, 58 Kan. 732 , 51 Pac. 271 , that application can not be made. . . (pp. 333, 334.) 731 A later statement of the rule is found in Purl v. Purl, 108 Kan. 673 , 197 Pac. 185 , where the court said: “When the will was executed and when the testator died, he resided in the state of Illinois.	1	1974–1974
Bonasera v. Roffe green arizctapp · 1968 2 sentences 1974In addition to New Jersey the states which follow, the New Jersey rule are: California, Abrams v. Guston, 110 Cal. App. 2d 556 , 243 P. 2d 109 ; DeMetre v. Savas, 93 Ohio App. 367 , 113 N. E. 2d 902 ; Washington, Grammer v. Skagit Valley Lumber Co., 162 Wash. 677 , 299 Pac. 376 ; Texas, Breeding v. Anderson, 152 Tex. 92 , 254 S. W. 2d 377 ; Hall v. Hard, 335 S. W. 2d 584 ; Arizona, Bonasera v. Roffe, 8 Ariz. App. 1 , 442 P. 2d 165 . 1974In addition to New Jersey the states which follow, the New Jersey rule are: California, Abrams v. Guston, 110 Cal. App. 2d 556 , 243 P. 2d 109 ; DeMetre v. Savas, 93 Ohio App. 367 , 113 N. E. 2d 902 ; Washington, Grammer v. Skagit Valley Lumber Co., 162 Wash. 677 , 299 Pac. 376 ; Texas, Breeding v. Anderson, 152 Tex. 92 , 254 S. W. 2d 377 ; Hall v. Hard, 335 S. W. 2d 584 ; Arizona, Bonasera v. Roffe, 8 Ariz. App. 1 , 442 P. 2d 165 .	1	1974–1974
Abrams v. Guston green calctapp · 1952 2 sentences 1974In addition to New Jersey the states which follow, the New Jersey rule are: California, Abrams v. Guston, 110 Cal. App. 2d 556 , 243 P. 2d 109 ; DeMetre v. Savas, 93 Ohio App. 367 , 113 N. E. 2d 902 ; Washington, Grammer v. Skagit Valley Lumber Co., 162 Wash. 677 , 299 Pac. 376 ; Texas, Breeding v. Anderson, 152 Tex. 92 , 254 S. W. 2d 377 ; Hall v. Hard, 335 S. W. 2d 584 ; Arizona, Bonasera v. Roffe, 8 Ariz. App. 1 , 442 P. 2d 165 . 1974In addition to New Jersey the states which follow, the New Jersey rule are: California, Abrams v. Guston, 110 Cal. App. 2d 556 , 243 P. 2d 109 ; DeMetre v. Savas, 93 Ohio App. 367 , 113 N. E. 2d 902 ; Washington, Grammer v. Skagit Valley Lumber Co., 162 Wash. 677 , 299 Pac. 376 ; Texas, Breeding v. Anderson, 152 Tex. 92 , 254 S. W. 2d 377 ; Hall v. Hard, 335 S. W. 2d 584 ; Arizona, Bonasera v. Roffe, 8 Ariz. App. 1 , 442 P. 2d 165 .	1	1974–1974
Demetre v. Savas green ohioctapp · 1953 2 sentences 1974In addition to New Jersey the states which follow, the New Jersey rule are: California, Abrams v. Guston, 110 Cal. App. 2d 556 , 243 P. 2d 109 ; DeMetre v. Savas, 93 Ohio App. 367 , 113 N. E. 2d 902 ; Washington, Grammer v. Skagit Valley Lumber Co., 162 Wash. 677 , 299 Pac. 376 ; Texas, Breeding v. Anderson, 152 Tex. 92 , 254 S. W. 2d 377 ; Hall v. Hard, 335 S. W. 2d 584 ; Arizona, Bonasera v. Roffe, 8 Ariz. App. 1 , 442 P. 2d 165 . 1974In addition to New Jersey the states which follow, the New Jersey rule are: California, Abrams v. Guston, 110 Cal. App. 2d 556 , 243 P. 2d 109 ; DeMetre v. Savas, 93 Ohio App. 367 , 113 N. E. 2d 902 ; Washington, Grammer v. Skagit Valley Lumber Co., 162 Wash. 677 , 299 Pac. 376 ; Texas, Breeding v. Anderson, 152 Tex. 92 , 254 S. W. 2d 377 ; Hall v. Hard, 335 S. W. 2d 584 ; Arizona, Bonasera v. Roffe, 8 Ariz. App. 1 , 442 P. 2d 165 .	1	1974–1974
Grammer v. Skagit Valley Lumber Co. green wash · 1931 2 sentences 1974In addition to New Jersey the states which follow, the New Jersey rule are: California, Abrams v. Guston, 110 Cal. App. 2d 556 , 243 P. 2d 109 ; DeMetre v. Savas, 93 Ohio App. 367 , 113 N. E. 2d 902 ; Washington, Grammer v. Skagit Valley Lumber Co., 162 Wash. 677 , 299 Pac. 376 ; Texas, Breeding v. Anderson, 152 Tex. 92 , 254 S. W. 2d 377 ; Hall v. Hard, 335 S. W. 2d 584 ; Arizona, Bonasera v. Roffe, 8 Ariz. App. 1 , 442 P. 2d 165 . 1974In addition to New Jersey the states which follow, the New Jersey rule are: California, Abrams v. Guston, 110 Cal. App. 2d 556 , 243 P. 2d 109 ; DeMetre v. Savas, 93 Ohio App. 367 , 113 N. E. 2d 902 ; Washington, Grammer v. Skagit Valley Lumber Co., 162 Wash. 677 , 299 Pac. 376 ; Texas, Breeding v. Anderson, 152 Tex. 92 , 254 S. W. 2d 377 ; Hall v. Hard, 335 S. W. 2d 584 ; Arizona, Bonasera v. Roffe, 8 Ariz. App. 1 , 442 P. 2d 165 .	1	1974–1974

Where else courts name it

NJ 113 (1926–2025) NY 13 (1914–2024) PA 11 (1969–2025) KS 8 (1916–2013) DC 4 (1984–1996) CT 4 (1978–2018) RI 4 (1968–2003) CA 4 (1959–1995) TN 3 (1978–1999) IA 3 (1939–1977) IL 3 (1965–1997) MA 3 (1987–2007) FL 3 (1960–1985) AZ 3 (1994–2006) OR 2 (1972–1996) DE 2 (1949–1976) MS 2 (1970–1987) OH 2 (1907–1931) MD 2 (1968–2019) CO 2 (1963–1988) MI 2 (1999–1999)

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.

← Caselaw search · G Cite Topics · Brief Check