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 2001–2022 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 |
|---|---|---|
Soto v. City of Bonner Springsgreen2 sentences2017See Soto v. City of Bonner Springs, 291 Kan. 73, 78 , 238 P.3d 278 (2010) (KTCA immunity); Jackson v. U.S.D. 259, 268 Kan. 319 , Syl. ¶ 3, 995 P.2d 844 (2000) (KTCA immunity); Redding v. Shelton's Harley Davidson, Inc., 139 N.C. 2017See Soto v. City of Bonner Springs, 291 Kan. 73, 78 , 238 P.3d 278 (2010) (KTCA immunity); Jackson v. U.S.D. 259, 268 Kan. 319 , Syl. ¶ 3, 995 P.2d 844 (2000) (KTCA immunity); Redding v. Shelton's Harley Davidson, Inc., 139 N.C. | 2 | 2 |
Thomas v. COUNTY COM'RS OF SHAWNEE COUNTYgreen1 sentence2019See Thomas, 293 Kan. at 233 (holding defendants abandoned argument for application of personnel policy exception under the KTCA that was raised but not supported by pertinent authority; noting government bears the burden to establish KTCA exception); see also McCain Foods USA, Inc. v. Central Processors, Inc., 275 Kan. 1, 15 , 61 P.3d 68 (2002) ("'A litigant who fails to press a point by supporting it with pertinent authority, or by showing why it is sound despite a lack of supporting authority or in the face of contrary authority, forfeits the point.'"). | 1 | 1 |
McCain Foods USA, Inc. v. Central Processors, Inc.green2 sentences2019See Thomas, 293 Kan. at 233 (holding defendants abandoned argument for application of personnel policy exception under the KTCA that was raised but not supported by pertinent authority; noting government bears the burden to establish KTCA exception); see also McCain Foods USA, Inc. v. Central Processors, Inc., 275 Kan. 1, 15 , 61 P.3d 68 (2002) ("'A litigant who fails to press a point by supporting it with pertinent authority, or by showing why it is sound despite a lack of supporting authority or in the face of contrary authority, forfeits the point.'"). 2019See Thomas, 293 Kan. at 233 (holding defendants abandoned argument for application of personnel policy exception under the KTCA that was raised but not supported by pertinent authority; noting government bears the burden to establish KTCA exception); see also McCain Foods USA, Inc. v. Central Processors, Inc., 275 Kan. 1, 15 , 61 P.3d 68 (2002) ("'A litigant who fails to press a point by supporting it with pertinent authority, or by showing why it is sound despite a lack of supporting authority or in the face of contrary authority, forfeits the point.'"). | 1 | 1 |
Williams v. C-U-Out Bail Bondsgreen2 sentences2019The panel identified the discretionary function exception to government liability under K.S.A. 2016 Supp. 75-6104(e) as the exception to be examined and noted that "no mandatory duty or guideline has been shown that would have governed the means by which the police officers investigated the situation," 54 Kan. App. 2d at 615, but it specifically focused on whether there was a requirement that officers arrest the C-U-Out agents. 2019The panel identified the discretionary function exception to government liability under K.S.A. 2016 Supp. 75-6104(e) as the exception to be examined and noted that "no mandatory duty or guideline has been shown that would have governed the means by which the police officers investigated the situation," 54 Kan. App. 2d at 615, but it specifically focused on whether there was a requirement that officers arrest the C-U-Out agents. | 1 | 1 |
Baska v. Scherzergreen2 sentences2017See Baska v. Scherzer, 283 Kan. 750, 756 , 156 P.3d 617 (2007) (civil assault entails threat of bodily harm coupled with apparent ability to carry out threat resulting in victim's immediate apprehension of harm). 2017See Baska v. Scherzer, 283 Kan. 750, 756 , 156 P.3d 617 (2007) (civil assault entails threat of bodily harm coupled with apparent ability to carry out threat resulting in victim's immediate apprehension of harm). | 1 | 1 |
Adams v. Board of Sedgwick County Commissionersgreen1 sentence2011See Soto v. City of Bonner Springs, 291 Kan. 73, 78 , 238 P.3d 278 (2010) (applicability of KTCA immunity); Adams, 289 Kan. at 586 (existence of duty). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Kansas. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Schreiner v. Hodge
green
2 sentences2022K.S.A. 75-6104; Schreiner v. Hodge, 315 Kan. 25 , 37, 504 P.3d 410 (2022) (recognizing "the exceptions 12 to the general rule of liability are numerous and confirm 'there has been no wholesale rejection of immunity by the Kansas Legislature'"). 2022K.S.A. 75-6104; Schreiner v. Hodge, 315 Kan. 25 , 37, 504 P.3d 410 (2022) (recognizing "the exceptions 12 to the general rule of liability are numerous and confirm 'there has been no wholesale rejection of immunity by the Kansas Legislature'"). | 1 | 2022–2022 |
Patterson v. Cowley County, Kansas
green
2 sentences2020Patterson v. Cowley County, Kansas, 307 Kan. 616, 630 , 413 P.3d 432 (2018). 2020Patterson v. Cowley County, Kansas, 307 Kan. 616, 630 , 413 P.3d 432 (2018). | 1 | 2020–2020 |
Robertson v. City of Topeka
green
2 sentences2019Further, the Police Officers and thereby the City as their employer are immune from liability under the Kansas Tort Claims Act in the performance of their discretionary functions." On the issue of KTCA immunity, the judge cited Robertson v. City of Topeka, 231 Kan. 358 , 644 P.2d 458 (1982), saying Robertson made "clear that despite notice pleading it is incumbent upon the Plaintiffs to allege facts sufficient to remove the immunity." He concluded that the plaintiffs had failed to do so. 2019Further, the Police Officers and thereby the City as their employer are immune from liability under the Kansas Tort Claims Act in the performance of their discretionary functions." On the issue of KTCA immunity, the judge cited Robertson v. City of Topeka, 231 Kan. 358 , 644 P.2d 458 (1982), saying Robertson made "clear that despite notice pleading it is incumbent upon the Plaintiffs to allege facts sufficient to remove the immunity." He concluded that the plaintiffs had failed to do so. | 1 | 2019–2019 |
Redding v. Shelton's Harley Davidson, Inc.
green
2 sentences2017App. 816, 821 , 534 S.E.2d 656 (2000) (privilege presents affirmative defense to civil battery on which defendant bears burden of proof); Prosser and Keeton on the Law of Torts § 16 (5th ed. 1984) (defendant must "plead and prove" privilege or justification excusing conduct otherwise amounting to intentional tort); 6A C.J.S., Assault § 49 19 (defendant bears burden of proving privilege or justification as affirmative defense to battery). 2017See Soto v. City of Bonner Springs, 291 Kan. 73, 78 , 238 P.3d 278 (2010) (KTCA immunity); Jackson v. U.S.D. 259, 268 Kan. 319 , Syl. ¶ 3, 995 P.2d 844 (2000) (KTCA immunity); Redding v. Shelton's Harley Davidson, Inc., 139 N.C. | 1 | 2017–2017 |
Jackson Ex Rel. Essien v. Unified School District 259
green
2 sentences2017See Soto v. City of Bonner Springs, 291 Kan. 73, 78 , 238 P.3d 278 (2010) (KTCA immunity); Jackson v. U.S.D. 259, 268 Kan. 319 , Syl. ¶ 3, 995 P.2d 844 (2000) (KTCA immunity); Redding v. Shelton's Harley Davidson, Inc., 139 N.C. 2017See Soto v. City of Bonner Springs, 291 Kan. 73, 78 , 238 P.3d 278 (2010) (KTCA immunity); Jackson v. U.S.D. 259, 268 Kan. 319 , Syl. ¶ 3, 995 P.2d 844 (2000) (KTCA immunity); Redding v. Shelton's Harley Davidson, Inc., 139 N.C. | 1 | 2017–2017 |
Woodruff Ex Rel. Woodruff v. City of Ottawa
green
2 sentences2001“Subject to the limitations of the Kansas Tort Claims Act, K.S.A. 75-6101 et seq., each governmental entity shall be liable for damages caused by the negligent or wrongful act or omission of any of its employees while acting within the scope of their employment under circumstances where the governmental entity, if a private person, would be hable under the laws of the state.” Woodruff v. City of Ottawa, 263 Kan. 557 , Syl. ¶ 5, 951 P.2d 953 (1997). 2001“Subject to the limitations of the Kansas Tort Claims Act, K.S.A. 75-6101 et seq., each governmental entity shall be liable for damages caused by the negligent or wrongful act or omission of any of its employees while acting within the scope of their employment under circumstances where the governmental entity, if a private person, would be hable under the laws of the state.” Woodruff v. City of Ottawa, 263 Kan. 557 , Syl. ¶ 5, 951 P.2d 953 (1997). | 1 | 2001–2001 |
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.