8 Kansas opinions name it 2 courts 1989–2022 3 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 |
|---|---|---|
| No positive-treatment citations attached to this issue in Kansas. | ||
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Kansas. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Robert J. Knight, Sr. v. Insurance Company of North America
green
2 sentences2022Then, citing cases from Georgia and Kentucky, the Board concluded that the statute was "inapplicable" to an uninsured motorist claim. 647 F.2d at 129 . 2022Then, citing cases from Georgia and Kentucky, the Board concluded that the statute was "inapplicable" to an uninsured motorist claim. 647 F.2d at 129 . | 3 | 2022–2022 |
Winner v. Ratzlaff
green
2 sentences2006In each of these options, he may litigate all of the issues of liability and damages.” (Emphasis added.) 211 Kan. at 65 . 2001In each of these options he may litigate all of the issues of liability and damages [citation omitted].” 211 Kan. at 65 . | 2 | 2001–2006 |
To v. State Farm Mutual Insurance
green
2 sentences2002Accordingly, we conclude that, based on text and context, the operative phrase in ORS 742.504(2)(g)(B) — ‘any person having an uninsured motorist claim resulting from the accident’ — is most reasonably read as referring to a person who has such a claim at the time that the determination of uninsured motorist coverage is being made — i.e., the time when the person’s testimony is offered to corroborate the facts of the ‘phantom vehicle’ accident — rather than to a person who has such a claim at the time of the accident.” To v. State Farm Mutual Ins., 319 Or. 93, 101 , 873 P.2d 1072 (1994). 2002Accordingly, we conclude that, based on text and context, the operative phrase in ORS 742.504(2)(g)(B) — ‘any person having an uninsured motorist claim resulting from the accident’ — is most reasonably read as referring to a person who has such a claim at the time that the determination of uninsured motorist coverage is being made — i.e., the time when the person’s testimony is offered to corroborate the facts of the ‘phantom vehicle’ accident — rather than to a person who has such a claim at the time of the accident.” To v. State Farm Mutual Ins., 319 Or. 93, 101 , 873 P.2d 1072 (1994). | 1 | 2002–2002 |
Haas v. Freeman
green
1 sentence1991Under either option the insurer is bound by the judgment obtained. 236 Kan. at 683 . | 1 | 1991–1991 |
Allstate Insurance Company v. Chastain
green
1 sentence1989Cases using this rationale include: Allstate Insurance Company v. Chastain, 251 So. 2d 354 (Fla. Dist. | 1 | 1989–1989 |
Counted by distinct opinions that both name this issue and are annotated to the section; sections every opinion cites regardless of issue are not filtered here, so read the counts against the total above.
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.