limits inquiry in Kansas

1956(State v. Shanahan, 114 Kan. 212 , 217 Pac. 309 .) It is the salutary rule of trial practice that when a party is a witness in his own behalf, and where the issues of fact must largely turn on the credence which the triers of fact will give to his testimony, the fullest inquiry should be permitted on cross-examination to discover not only the accuracy of his understanding but his memory and his credibility as well.

1956(State v. Shanahan, 114 Kan. 212 , 217 Pac. 309 .) It is the salutary rule of trial practice that when a party is a witness in his own behalf, and where the issues of fact must largely turn on the credence which the triers of fact will give to his testimony, the fullest inquiry should be permitted on cross-examination to discover not only the accuracy of his understanding but his memory and his credibility as well.

1965Courts are inclined toward a construction favorable to the early vesting of an estate so as not to defeat the intent of the testator but there must necessarily be a vesting within the limits of the rule against perpetuities. ( Klingman v. Gilbert, 90 Kan. 545, 548, 549 , 135 Pac. 682 ; Tretbar v. Aged Ministers Home, 180 Kan. 18, 21 , 299 P.2d 58 .)" In ruling upon whether a future interest violates the rule against perpetuities, speculation concerning the probabilities of various subsequent developments is not indulged in by the courts.

1965Courts are inclined toward a construction favorable to the early vesting of an estate so as not to defeat the intent of the testator but there must necessarily be a vesting within the limits of the rule against perpetuities. ( Klingman v. Gilbert, 90 Kan. 545, 548, 549 , 135 Pac. 682 ; Tretbar v. Aged Ministers Home, 180 Kan. 18, 21 , 299 P.2d 58 .)" In ruling upon whether a future interest violates the rule against perpetuities, speculation concerning the probabilities of various subsequent developments is not indulged in by the courts.

1926(State v. Smith, 114 Kan. 186 , 217 Pac. 307 ; State v. Shanahan, 114 Kan. 212 , 217 Pac. 309 .) In State v. Abbott, 65 Kan. 139 , 69 Pac. 160 , it was said: “There is no better method of sifting the conscience and testing the veracity and credibility of a witness than by cross-examination, and there is abundant authority holding that for the purpose of impairing the credibility of the witness he may be cross-examined as to specific acts tending to discredit him, although such acts are irrelevant and collateral to the main issue.” (p. 141.) At the conclusion of Preston’s testimony the court di

1926(State v. Smith, 114 Kan. 186 , 217 Pac. 307 ; State v. Shanahan, 114 Kan. 212 , 217 Pac. 309 .) In State v. Abbott, 65 Kan. 139 , 69 Pac. 160 , it was said: “There is no better method of sifting the conscience and testing the veracity and credibility of a witness than by cross-examination, and there is abundant authority holding that for the purpose of impairing the credibility of the witness he may be cross-examined as to specific acts tending to discredit him, although such acts are irrelevant and collateral to the main issue.” (p. 141.) At the conclusion of Preston’s testimony the court di

1923In Cockrill v. Railway Co., 90 Kan. 650 ., 136 Pac. 322 , it was held: “When a party takes the stand as a witness his adversary has a right, on cross-examination, for the purpose of affecting his credibility, to inquire touching his past life and conduct, the limits of such inquiry being ordinarily within the discretion of the trial court.” (Syl. ¶ 1.) In the case cited the inquiry was permitted but its scope was limited and the court held it was not error.

1923In Cockrill v. Railway Co., 90 Kan. 650 ., 136 Pac. 322 , it was held: “When a party takes the stand as a witness his adversary has a right, on cross-examination, for the purpose of affecting his credibility, to inquire touching his past life and conduct, the limits of such inquiry being ordinarily within the discretion of the trial court.” (Syl. ¶ 1.) In the case cited the inquiry was permitted but its scope was limited and the court held it was not error.

1990Thus, immunity may not be conferred simply because the tax has an effect on the United States, or even because the Federal Government shoulders the entire economic burden of the levy.” 455 U.S. at 733-34 .

1926(State v. Smith, 114 Kan. 186 , 217 Pac. 307 ; State v. Shanahan, 114 Kan. 212 , 217 Pac. 309 .) In State v. Abbott, 65 Kan. 139 , 69 Pac. 160 , it was said: “There is no better method of sifting the conscience and testing the veracity and credibility of a witness than by cross-examination, and there is abundant authority holding that for the purpose of impairing the credibility of the witness he may be cross-examined as to specific acts tending to discredit him, although such acts are irrelevant and collateral to the main issue.” (p. 141.) At the conclusion of Preston’s testimony the court di

1926(State v. Smith, 114 Kan. 186 , 217 Pac. 307 ; State v. Shanahan, 114 Kan. 212 , 217 Pac. 309 .) In State v. Abbott, 65 Kan. 139 , 69 Pac. 160 , it was said: “There is no better method of sifting the conscience and testing the veracity and credibility of a witness than by cross-examination, and there is abundant authority holding that for the purpose of impairing the credibility of the witness he may be cross-examined as to specific acts tending to discredit him, although such acts are irrelevant and collateral to the main issue.” (p. 141.) At the conclusion of Preston’s testimony the court di

1923(The State v. Abbott, 65 Kan. 139 , 69 Pac. 160 ; The State v. Pugh, 75 Kan. 792 , 90 Pac. 242 ; Ramsey v. Partridge, 86 Kan. 398 , 121 Pac. 343 ; Cockrill v. Railway Co., 90 Kan. 650 , 136 Pac. 322 ; The State v. Moberly, 90 Kan. 837 , 136 Pac. 324 ; The State v. Killion, 95 Kan. 371 , 148 Pac. 643 ; Zinn v. Updegraff, 113 Kan. 25 , 213 Pac. 816 ; The State v. Smith, ante, p. 186.) In The State v. Abbott, supra, it was said: “There is no better method of sifting the conscience and testing the veracity and credibility of a witness than by cross-examination, and there is abundant authority hold

1923(The State v. Abbott, 65 Kan. 139 , 69 Pac. 160 ; The State v. Pugh, 75 Kan. 792 , 90 Pac. 242 ; Ramsey v. Partridge, 86 Kan. 398 , 121 Pac. 343 ; Cockrill v. Railway Co., 90 Kan. 650 , 136 Pac. 322 ; The State v. Moberly, 90 Kan. 837 , 136 Pac. 324 ; The State v. Killion, 95 Kan. 371 , 148 Pac. 643 ; Zinn v. Updegraff, 113 Kan. 25 , 213 Pac. 816 ; The State v. Smith, ante, p. 186.) In The State v. Abbott, supra, it was said: “There is no better method of sifting the conscience and testing the veracity and credibility of a witness than by cross-examination, and there is abundant authority hold

1923(The State v. Abbott, 65 Kan. 139 , 69 Pac. 160 ; The State v. Pugh, 75 Kan. 792 , 90 Pac. 242 ; Ramsey v. Partridge, 86 Kan. 398 , 121 Pac. 343 ; Cockrill v. Railway Co., 90 Kan. 650 , 136 Pac. 322 ; The State v. Moberly, 90 Kan. 837 , 136 Pac. 324 ; The State v. Killion, 95 Kan. 371 , 148 Pac. 643 ; Zinn v. Updegraff, 113 Kan. 25 , 213 Pac. 816 ; The State v. Smith, ante, p. 186.) In The State v. Abbott, supra, it was said: “There is no better method of sifting the conscience and testing the veracity and credibility of a witness than by cross-examination, and there is abundant authority hold

1923(The State v. Abbott, 65 Kan. 139 , 69 Pac. 160 ; The State v. Pugh, 75 Kan. 792 , 90 Pac. 242 ; Ramsey v. Partridge, 86 Kan. 398 , 121 Pac. 343 ; Cockrill v. Railway Co., 90 Kan. 650 , 136 Pac. 322 ; The State v. Moberly, 90 Kan. 837 , 136 Pac. 324 ; The State v. Killion, 95 Kan. 371 , 148 Pac. 643 ; Zinn v. Updegraff, 113 Kan. 25 , 213 Pac. 816 ; The State v. Smith, ante, p. 186.) In The State v. Abbott, supra, it was said: “There is no better method of sifting the conscience and testing the veracity and credibility of a witness than by cross-examination, and there is abundant authority hold

1923(The State v. Abbott, 65 Kan. 139 , 69 Pac. 160 ; The State v. Pugh, 75 Kan. 792 , 90 Pac. 242 ; Ramsey v. Partridge, 86 Kan. 398 , 121 Pac. 343 ; Cockrill v. Railway Co., 90 Kan. 650 , 136 Pac. 322 ; The State v. Moberly, 90 Kan. 837 , 136 Pac. 324 ; The State v. Killion, 95 Kan. 371 , 148 Pac. 643 ; Zinn v. Updegraff, 113 Kan. 25 , 213 Pac. 816 ; The State v. Smith, ante, p. 186.) In The State v. Abbott, supra, it was said: “There is no better method of sifting the conscience and testing the veracity and credibility of a witness than by cross-examination, and there is abundant authority hold

1923(The State v. Abbott, 65 Kan. 139 , 69 Pac. 160 ; The State v. Pugh, 75 Kan. 792 , 90 Pac. 242 ; Ramsey v. Partridge, 86 Kan. 398 , 121 Pac. 343 ; Cockrill v. Railway Co., 90 Kan. 650 , 136 Pac. 322 ; The State v. Moberly, 90 Kan. 837 , 136 Pac. 324 ; The State v. Killion, 95 Kan. 371 , 148 Pac. 643 ; Zinn v. Updegraff, 113 Kan. 25 , 213 Pac. 816 ; The State v. Smith, ante, p. 186.) In The State v. Abbott, supra, it was said: “There is no better method of sifting the conscience and testing the veracity and credibility of a witness than by cross-examination, and there is abundant authority hold

1923(The State v. Abbott, 65 Kan. 139 , 69 Pac. 160 ; The State v. Pugh, 75 Kan. 792 , 90 Pac. 242 ; Ramsey v. Partridge, 86 Kan. 398 , 121 Pac. 343 ; Cockrill v. Railway Co., 90 Kan. 650 , 136 Pac. 322 ; The State v. Moberly, 90 Kan. 837 , 136 Pac. 324 ; The State v. Killion, 95 Kan. 371 , 148 Pac. 643 ; Zinn v. Updegraff, 113 Kan. 25 , 213 Pac. 816 ; The State v. Smith, ante, p. 186.) In The State v. Abbott, supra, it was said: “There is no better method of sifting the conscience and testing the veracity and credibility of a witness than by cross-examination, and there is abundant authority hold

1923(The State v. Abbott, 65 Kan. 139 , 69 Pac. 160 ; The State v. Pugh, 75 Kan. 792 , 90 Pac. 242 ; Ramsey v. Partridge, 86 Kan. 398 , 121 Pac. 343 ; Cockrill v. Railway Co., 90 Kan. 650 , 136 Pac. 322 ; The State v. Moberly, 90 Kan. 837 , 136 Pac. 324 ; The State v. Killion, 95 Kan. 371 , 148 Pac. 643 ; Zinn v. Updegraff, 113 Kan. 25 , 213 Pac. 816 ; The State v. Smith, ante, p. 186.) In The State v. Abbott, supra, it was said: “There is no better method of sifting the conscience and testing the veracity and credibility of a witness than by cross-examination, and there is abundant authority hold

1923(The State v. Abbott, 65 Kan. 139 , 69 Pac. 160 ; The State v. Pugh, 75 Kan. 792 , 90 Pac. 242 ; Ramsey v. Partridge, 86 Kan. 398 , 121 Pac. 343 ; Cockrill v. Railway Co., 90 Kan. 650 , 136 Pac. 322 ; The State v. Moberly, 90 Kan. 837 , 136 Pac. 324 ; The State v. Killion, 95 Kan. 371 , 148 Pac. 643 ; Zinn v. Updegraff, 113 Kan. 25 , 213 Pac. 816 ; The State v. Smith, ante, p. 186.) In The State v. Abbott, supra, it was said: “There is no better method of sifting the conscience and testing the veracity and credibility of a witness than by cross-examination, and there is abundant authority hold

1923(The State v. Abbott, 65 Kan. 139 , 69 Pac. 160 ; The State v. Pugh, 75 Kan. 792 , 90 Pac. 242 ; Ramsey v. Partridge, 86 Kan. 398 , 121 Pac. 343 ; Cockrill v. Railway Co., 90 Kan. 650 , 136 Pac. 322 ; The State v. Moberly, 90 Kan. 837 , 136 Pac. 324 ; The State v. Killion, 95 Kan. 371 , 148 Pac. 643 ; Zinn v. Updegraff, 113 Kan. 25 , 213 Pac. 816 ; The State v. Smith, ante, p. 186.) In The State v. Abbott, supra, it was said: “There is no better method of sifting the conscience and testing the veracity and credibility of a witness than by cross-examination, and there is abundant authority hold