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 1959–2019 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 |
|---|---|---|
Bachtle v. Bachtlegreen1 sentence1992See Bachtle v. Bachtle, 494 A.2d 1253, 1256 (Del. 1985); Eyler v. Eyler, 492 N.E.2d 1071, 1074 (Ind. 1986); Thompson v. Thompson, 189 Mich. App. 197, 199 , 472 N.W.2d 51 (1991); Bednar v. Bednar, 193 N.J. | 1 | 1 |
Marriage of Eyler v. Eylergreen1 sentence1992See Bachtle v. Bachtle, 494 A.2d 1253, 1256 (Del. 1985); Eyler v. Eyler, 492 N.E.2d 1071, 1074 (Ind. 1986); Thompson v. Thompson, 189 Mich. App. 197, 199 , 472 N.W.2d 51 (1991); Bednar v. Bednar, 193 N.J. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Kansas. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
In Re the Marriage of Schwien
green
2 sentences1994When the time of valuation becomes an issue in a contested case, the trial court at the pretrial conference should set the valuation date.” 17 Kan. 1993App. 2d 498 , Syl. ¶ 3, 839 P.2d 541 (1992), where it was held: “The trial court has discretion to value the marital estate at the time of separation, at the time the divorce petition is filed, at the time of the divorce hearing, or as the facts in each case dictate. | 2 | 1993–1994 |
In Re the Marriage of Wilson
green
2 sentences2019The district court then "orally granted a divorce to each party and accepted the parties' stipulation as to their agreement on the balance of the issues" and directed wife's counsel to prepare the journal entry. 245 Kan. at 179 , 777 P.2d 773 . 2019The district court then "orally granted a divorce to each party and accepted the parties' stipulation as to their agreement on the balance of the issues" and directed wife's counsel to prepare the journal entry. 245 Kan. at 179 , 777 P.2d 773 . | 1 | 2019–2019 |
Thompson v. Thompson
green
2 sentences1992See Bachtle v. Bachtle, 494 A.2d 1253, 1256 (Del. 1985); Eyler v. Eyler, 492 N.E.2d 1071, 1074 (Ind. 1986); Thompson v. Thompson, 189 Mich. App. 197, 199 , 472 N.W.2d 51 (1991); Bednar v. Bednar, 193 N.J. 1992See Bachtle v. Bachtle, 494 A.2d 1253, 1256 (Del. 1985); Eyler v. Eyler, 492 N.E.2d 1071, 1074 (Ind. 1986); Thompson v. Thompson, 189 Mich. App. 197, 199 , 472 N.W.2d 51 (1991); Bednar v. Bednar, 193 N.J. | 1 | 1992–1992 |
Bednar v. Bednar
green
1 sentence1992See Bachtle v. Bachtle, 494 A.2d 1253, 1256 (Del. 1985); Eyler v. Eyler, 492 N.E.2d 1071, 1074 (Ind. 1986); Thompson v. Thompson, 189 Mich. App. 197, 199 , 472 N.W.2d 51 (1991); Bednar v. Bednar, 193 N.J. | 1 | 1992–1992 |
Pizel v. Zuspann
green
2 sentences1991The district court then granted summary judgment to defendants, concluding: (1) There existed no issues as to any material facts; (2) whether an attorney erred is a question of law in a legal malpractice action; (3) the defendants’ failure to file the divorce decree within the time limits prescribed by Supreme Court Rule 170 was not negligence per se; (4) the delay in filing the decree of divorce was not legal malpractice, because under the facts of this case, the parties did not reach an agreement as to disposition of all personalty at the divorce hearing; (5) no attorney-client relationship 1991The district court then granted summary judgment to defendants, concluding: (1) There existed no issues as to any material facts; (2) whether an attorney erred is a question of law in a legal malpractice action; (3) the defendants’ failure to file the divorce decree within the time limits prescribed by Supreme Court Rule 170 was not negligence per se; (4) the delay in filing the decree of divorce was not legal malpractice, because under the facts of this case, the parties did not reach an agreement as to disposition of all personalty at the divorce hearing; (5) no attorney-client relationship | 1 | 1991–1991 |
Pizel v. Zuspann
green
2 sentences1991The district court then granted summary judgment to defendants, concluding: (1) There existed no issues as to any material facts; (2) whether an attorney erred is a question of law in a legal malpractice action; (3) the defendants’ failure to file the divorce decree within the time limits prescribed by Supreme Court Rule 170 was not negligence per se; (4) the delay in filing the decree of divorce was not legal malpractice, because under the facts of this case, the parties did not reach an agreement as to disposition of all personalty at the divorce hearing; (5) no attorney-client relationship 1991The district court then granted summary judgment to defendants, concluding: (1) There existed no issues as to any material facts; (2) whether an attorney erred is a question of law in a legal malpractice action; (3) the defendants’ failure to file the divorce decree within the time limits prescribed by Supreme Court Rule 170 was not negligence per se; (4) the delay in filing the decree of divorce was not legal malpractice, because under the facts of this case, the parties did not reach an agreement as to disposition of all personalty at the divorce hearing; (5) no attorney-client relationship | 1 | 1991–1991 |
Gillet v. Powell
neutral
2 sentences1969In support thereof he cites Gillet v. Powell, 174 Kan. 88 , 254 P. 2d 258 . 1969In support thereof he cites Gillet v. Powell, 174 Kan. 88 , 254 P. 2d 258 . | 1 | 1969–1969 |
Allen v. Bagley and F. H. Sav. L. Assn.
green
2 sentences1959Assn., 234 Mo. App. 891 , 133 S. W. 2d 1027 .) In Gates v. Gates, 160 Kan. 428 , 163 P. 2d 395 , a divorce hearing was held on June 4,1943, and an entry on the trial docket indicated that the case was taken under advisement on that date. 1959Assn., 234 Mo. App. 891 , 133 S. W. 2d 1027 .) In Gates v. Gates, 160 Kan. 428 , 163 P. 2d 395 , a divorce hearing was held on June 4,1943, and an entry on the trial docket indicated that the case was taken under advisement on that date. | 1 | 1959–1959 |
Gates v. Gates
green
2 sentences1959Assn., 234 Mo. App. 891 , 133 S. W. 2d 1027 .) In Gates v. Gates, 160 Kan. 428 , 163 P. 2d 395 , a divorce hearing was held on June 4,1943, and an entry on the trial docket indicated that the case was taken under advisement on that date. 1959Assn., 234 Mo. App. 891 , 133 S. W. 2d 1027 .) In Gates v. Gates, 160 Kan. 428 , 163 P. 2d 395 , a divorce hearing was held on June 4,1943, and an entry on the trial docket indicated that the case was taken under advisement on that date. | 1 | 1959–1959 |
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.