Already have an account? Sign in instead.
You stay signed in for 30 days on this browser.
Continue with Google Continue with MicrosoftNo account yet? Create a free one.
We sent a six-digit code.
It expires in ten minutes, works once, and only in this browser. Five wrong tries void it. Send another code.
Your account is live and the Cloudflare checks are off for this browser.
7 Kansas opinions name it 2 courts 1910–2024 1 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 |
|---|---|---|
Blockburger v. United States
green
2 sentences1995The Court cited the rule of Blockburger v. United States, 284 U.S. 299, 304 , 76 L. 1995The Court cited the rule of Blockburger v. United States, 284 U.S. 299, 304 , 76 L. | 2 | 1989–1995 |
Miller v. Fenton
green
1 sentence2024Second, it concluded "the nature of the inquiry itself lends support to the conclusion that 'voluntariness' is a legal question meriting independent consideration." 474 U.S. at 115 . | 1 | 2024–2024 |
In Re Tax Exemption Application of Central Illinois Public Services Co.
green
1 sentence2013The court also cited a rule of construction requiring that “ ‘[a] statute and pertinent constitutional provisions must be construed together with a view to make effective the legislative intent rather than defeat it.’ ” 276 Kan. at 621 . | 1 | 2013–2013 |
Cox v. Lesko
neutral
1 sentence2010This court determined that allowing the plaintiff to cross-examine an expert witness on how he preferred to treat the type of injury that the plaintiff sustained would unduly emphasize one approach over another and was not relevant in determining whether die defendant deviated from the standard of care. 23 Kan. | 1 | 2010–2010 |
Jenkins v. McCormick
green
2 sentences1987App. 2d at 516 , the court cited the rule defining the scope of this obligation as follows: “[I]f one party to a contract or transaction has superior knowledge, or knowledge which is not within the fair and reasonable reach of the other party and which he could not discover by the exercise of reasonable diligence, or means of knowledge which are not open to both parties alike, he is under a legal obligation to speak . . . .” See Jenkins v. McCormick, 184 Kan. 842,844-45 , 339 P.2d 8 (1959). 1987App. 2d at 516 , the court cited the rule defining the scope of this obligation as follows: “[I]f one party to a contract or transaction has superior knowledge, or knowledge which is not within the fair and reasonable reach of the other party and which he could not discover by the exercise of reasonable diligence, or means of knowledge which are not open to both parties alike, he is under a legal obligation to speak . . . .” See Jenkins v. McCormick, 184 Kan. 842,844-45 , 339 P.2d 8 (1959). | 1 | 1987–1987 |
Miltonvale State Bank v. Kuhnle
neutral
1 sentence1910(State Bank v. Kuhnle, 50 Kan. 420 .) This being true, the appellant is bound to take into account the pronunciation Rem'-er. | 1 | 1910–1910 |
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.