supposed defense in Kansas

1993Milum’s evidence in its most favorable light would have.shown no immediate threat; since it would not establish the supposed defense it was not error to exclude it.” 213 Kan. at 583-84 .

1992The trial court sustained the objection “’on the basis of the lack of relevancy.’ ” This court affirmed the trial court, stating: “Milum’s evidence in its most favorable light would have shown no immediate threat; since it would not establish the supposed defense it was not error to exclude it.” 213 Kan. at 582-84 .

1987App. 2d 403 , 701 P.2d 336 (1985); Hines v. Taco Tico, 9 Kan.

1987By arguing in its brief that Sunflower s evidence was insufficient because it failed to demonstrate that Sunflower retained Denton in its employ with mental reservation, the Fund points to a supposed principle that some workers’ compensation practitioners have inferred from certain language in the text and syllabi of Ramirez v. Rockwell Int’l, 10 Kan.

1987App. 2d 403 , 701 P.2d 336 (1985); Hines v. Taco Tico, 9 Kan.

1973Cf., State v. Lesco, 194 Kan. 555 , 400 P. 2d 695 , Syl. ¶ 4, cert. den. 382 U. S. 1015 , 15 L.

1973Cf., State v. Lesco, 194 Kan. 555 , 400 P. 2d 695 , Syl. ¶ 4, cert. den. 382 U. S. 1015 , 15 L.

1973Cf., State v. Lesco, 194 Kan. 555 , 400 P. 2d 695 , Syl. ¶ 4, cert. den. 382 U. S. 1015 , 15 L.

1956(Perry v. Gwartney, 162 Kan. 607 , 178 P. 2d 185 ; Thompson v. Nye, 174 Kan. 750 , *10 752, 257 P. 2d 937 .) An indicted or convicted prisoner who escapes may be extradited as a fugitive from justice, and the same is true as to a prisoner who violates his parole or whose parole has been revoked.

1956(Perry v. Gwartney, 162 Kan. 607 , 178 P. 2d 185 ; Thompson v. Nye, 174 Kan. 750 , *10 752, 257 P. 2d 937 .) An indicted or convicted prisoner who escapes may be extradited as a fugitive from justice, and the same is true as to a prisoner who violates his parole or whose parole has been revoked.

1956(Perry v. Gwartney, 162 Kan. 607 , 178 P. 2d 185 ; Thompson v. Nye, 174 Kan. 750 , *10 752, 257 P. 2d 937 .) An indicted or convicted prisoner who escapes may be extradited as a fugitive from justice, and the same is true as to a prisoner who violates his parole or whose parole has been revoked.

1956(Perry v. Gwartney, 162 Kan. 607 , 178 P. 2d 185 ; Thompson v. Nye, 174 Kan. 750 , *10 752, 257 P. 2d 937 .) An indicted or convicted prisoner who escapes may be extradited as a fugitive from justice, and the same is true as to a prisoner who violates his parole or whose parole has been revoked.

1920Allegations of that kind do not bring the case within the rule of Bartholomew v. Fell, 92 Kan. 64 , 139 Pac. 1016 , and oral evidence offered to sustain the supposed defense would merely contradict the writings (Underwood v. Viles, 106 Kan. 287 , 187 Pac. 881 , and cases cited in the opinion) .

1920Allegations of that kind do not bring the case within the rule of Bartholomew v. Fell, 92 Kan. 64 , 139 Pac. 1016 , and oral evidence offered to sustain the supposed defense would merely contradict the writings (Underwood v. Viles, 106 Kan. 287 , 187 Pac. 881 , and cases cited in the opinion) .

1920If any one was accommodated it was Peter,. not the bank, and the parol-evidence rule forbade proof of the supposed defense (Bank v. Watson, 99 Kan. 686 , 163 Pac. 637 ).

1920If any one was accommodated it was Peter,. not the bank, and the parol-evidence rule forbade proof of the supposed defense (Bank v. Watson, 99 Kan. 686 , 163 Pac. 637 ).

1920Allegations of that kind do not bring the case within the rule of Bartholomew v. Fell, 92 Kan. 64 , 139 Pac. 1016 , and oral evidence offered to sustain the supposed defense would merely contradict the writings (Underwood v. Viles, 106 Kan. 287 , 187 Pac. 881 , and cases cited in the opinion) .

1920Allegations of that kind do not bring the case within the rule of Bartholomew v. Fell, 92 Kan. 64 , 139 Pac. 1016 , and oral evidence offered to sustain the supposed defense would merely contradict the writings (Underwood v. Viles, 106 Kan. 287 , 187 Pac. 881 , and cases cited in the opinion) .

1915Co. v. Clow & Sons, 204 U. S. 286, 290 .) In reality this supposed test only states the problem in another way.

1915In the case of Deming Investment Co. v. Ely, 21 Wash. 102 , 57 Pac. 353 , it was said: “The test as to whether an appearance is general or special is usually the relief asked.

1915In the case of Deming Investment Co. v. Ely, 21 Wash. 102 , 57 Pac. 353 , it was said: “The test as to whether an appearance is general or special is usually the relief asked.

1876Walker v. Armstrong, 2 Kas. 199 ; Wilson v. Fuller, 9 Kas. 176 ; Luke v. Johnnycake, 9 Kas. 511 ; Marshall v. Shibley, 11 Kas. 114 . 3 Liability of pa“n¿°for existing debt.

1876Walker v. Armstrong, 2 Kas. 199 ; Wilson v. Fuller, 9 Kas. 176 ; Luke v. Johnnycake, 9 Kas. 511 ; Marshall v. Shibley, 11 Kas. 114 . 3 Liability of pa“n¿°for existing debt.

1876Walker v. Armstrong, 2 Kas. 199 ; Wilson v. Fuller, 9 Kas. 176 ; Luke v. Johnnycake, 9 Kas. 511 ; Marshall v. Shibley, 11 Kas. 114 . 3 Liability of pa“n¿°for existing debt.