8 Kansas opinions name it 2 courts 1895–2003 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 |
|---|---|---|
Bardwell v. Kestergreen1 sentence1995This court has noted: “Black’s Law Dictionary 1427 (6th ed. rev. 1990) defines ‘subrogation’ as ‘[t]he substitution of one person in the place of another with reference to a lawful claim, demand or right, so that he who is substituted succeeds to the rights of the other in relation to the debt or claim, and its rights, remedies, or securities.’ ” Bardwell, 15 Kan. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Kansas. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Howard v. Edwards
neutral
1 sentence2003Allstate argues Howard v. Edwards, 9 Kan. | 1 | 2003–2003 |
Ballweg v. Farmers Insurance
green
1 sentence1995In Ballweg , the court awarded attorney fees to the plaintiff’s attorneys and noted that “[s]ection (e) of the statute makes no exception when one insurance company represents all parties.” 228 Kan. at 510 . | 1 | 1995–1995 |
Rankin v. West American Insurance
green
1 sentence1990“It is futile for [insurer and employer] to argue their intent, or to point to provisions in the [employer’s] policy which are inconsistent with uninsured motorist coverage.” 84 Cal. App. 3d at 836 . | 1 | 1990–1990 |
Harris v. Shanahan
neutral
2 sentences1969(Harris v. Shanahan, 192 Kan. 629 , 390 P. 2d 772 .) Although the statute makes no exception to annual crops on the homestead at the date of death, a cursory examination of other statutes in the probate code fortifies our conclusion that growing crops are beyond the reach of the decedent’s personal representative and are not within the purview of the statute. 1969(Harris v. Shanahan, 192 Kan. 629 , 390 P. 2d 772 .) Although the statute makes no exception to annual crops on the homestead at the date of death, a cursory examination of other statutes in the probate code fortifies our conclusion that growing crops are beyond the reach of the decedent’s personal representative and are not within the purview of the statute. | 1 | 1969–1969 |
Levitt v. City of Wilson
green
2 sentences1954Another is that the statute makes no requirement that the territory in the proposed city be limited to platted lands, and this court has so held (Levitt v. Wilson, 72 Kan. 160 , 83 Pac. 397 ). 1954Another is that the statute makes no requirement that the territory in the proposed city be limited to platted lands, and this court has so held (Levitt v. Wilson, 72 Kan. 160 , 83 Pac. 397 ). | 1 | 1954–1954 |
Crane v. Trent
green
2 sentences1949They argue that the statute makes hearing the testatrix acknowledge her signature or that it is her will the only substitute for seeing her sign; that the use of the word “hear” in the statute can only mean the use of one’s vocal cords in speaking words, and our attention is directed to language contained in the quite recent case of In re Estate of Bond, 159 Kan. 249 , 153 P. 2d 912 , where it was said: . . 1949They argue that the statute makes hearing the testatrix acknowledge her signature or that it is her will the only substitute for seeing her sign; that the use of the word “hear” in the statute can only mean the use of one’s vocal cords in speaking words, and our attention is directed to language contained in the quite recent case of In re Estate of Bond, 159 Kan. 249 , 153 P. 2d 912 , where it was said: . . | 1 | 1949–1949 |
Simington v. Cubberly
neutral
2 sentences1932The statute makes no such exception, and in at least one case in which the statute was applied the receiver from another state was a party {Simington v. Cubberly, 132 Kan. 199, 203 , 294 Pac. 908 ). 1932The statute makes no such exception, and in at least one case in which the statute was applied the receiver from another state was a party {Simington v. Cubberly, 132 Kan. 199, 203 , 294 Pac. 908 ). | 1 | 1932–1932 |
Rannells v. Gerner
green
1 sentence1895The rule under the statute makes this presumption conclusive in a case of an adjudication of lunacy, as was held by the supreme court in Rannalls v. Gerner, 80 Mo. 474 . | 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.