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 1891–2013 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 |
|---|---|---|
Roberts v. Saylorgreen2 sentences2009See Roberts v. Saylor, 230 Kan. 289, 292 , 637 P.2d 1175 (1981). 2009See Roberts v. Saylor, 230 Kan. 289, 292 , 637 P.2d 1175 (1981). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Kansas. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
McCracken v. Kohl
green
2 sentences2013In the first, McCracken v. Kohl, 286 Kan. 1114, 1118 , 191 P.3d 313 (2008), this court explained that “a prerequisite to immunity [under K.S.A. 21-3219] is that the use of force be justified by K.S.A. 21-3211 [defense of person], K.S.A. 21-3212 [defense of dwelling], or K.S.A. 21-3213 [defense of property other than a dwelling].” K.S.A. 21-3211 obviously is the prerequisite that Jones would have had the district court apply in this case. 2013In the first, McCracken v. Kohl, 286 Kan. 1114, 1118 , 191 P.3d 313 (2008), this court explained that “a prerequisite to immunity [under K.S.A. 21-3219] is that the use of force be justified by K.S.A. 21-3211 [defense of person], K.S.A. 21-3212 [defense of dwelling], or K.S.A. 21-3213 [defense of property other than a dwelling].” K.S.A. 21-3211 obviously is the prerequisite that Jones would have had the district court apply in this case. | 1 | 2013–2013 |
State v. Fleming
green
2 sentences1991Civil liability need not be established as a prerequisite to the requirement of restitution as a probation condition.” In State v. Fleming, 125 N.H. 238, 241 , 480 A.2d 107 (1984), the Supreme Court of New Hampshire stated: “A victim’s right to bring a civil action is not affected by an order of restitution.” The Department points out that the restitution was calculated only on the basis of out-of-pocket expenses and did not include any nonpecuniary damages recoverable under civil law. 1991Civil liability need not be established as a prerequisite to the requirement of restitution as a probation condition.” In State v. Fleming, 125 N.H. 238, 241 , 480 A.2d 107 (1984), the Supreme Court of New Hampshire stated: “A victim’s right to bring a civil action is not affected by an order of restitution.” The Department points out that the restitution was calculated only on the basis of out-of-pocket expenses and did not include any nonpecuniary damages recoverable under civil law. | 1 | 1991–1991 |
Henry Enterprises, Inc. v. Smith
green
1 sentence1981K.S.A. 60226(b)(4) provides in part: “Discovery of facts known and opinions held by experts, otherwise discoverable under the provisions of subsection (b)(1) of this section and acquired or developed in anticipation of litigation or for trial, may be obtained only as follows . . . .” In Henry Enterprises, Inc. v. Smith, 225 Kan. 615 , Syl. ¶ 1, it was held: “The initial investigation of a potential claim, made by an insurance company prior to the commencement of litigation and not requested by or made under the guidance of counsel, is made in the ordinary course of business of the insurance co | 1 | 1981–1981 |
Combes v. Kelly
neutral
1 sentence1965The separate nature of the two proceedings was pointed out in Combes v. Kelly, ( 2 Misc. 2d 491 ), 152 N. Y. | 1 | 1965–1965 |
Brockman v. Bayman
neutral
2 sentences1938In the case of Brockman v. Bayman, 135 Kan. 238 , 10 P. 2d 31 , no notice of appeal was filed, and this court held: “Under the act relating to appeals from 'justices of the peace and city and county courts in civil cases (Laws 1931, ch. 229) a distinct notice must be filed within ten days stating clearly that an appeal is taken from a specified decision or judgment, as a primary and prerequisite requirement to an effective appeal.” (Syl. ¶ 3.) Referring now to the language of the notice, does it state clearly that an appeal is taken from a specified decision or judgment? 1938In the case of Brockman v. Bayman, 135 Kan. 238 , 10 P. 2d 31 , no notice of appeal was filed, and this court held: “Under the act relating to appeals from 'justices of the peace and city and county courts in civil cases (Laws 1931, ch. 229) a distinct notice must be filed within ten days stating clearly that an appeal is taken from a specified decision or judgment, as a primary and prerequisite requirement to an effective appeal.” (Syl. ¶ 3.) Referring now to the language of the notice, does it state clearly that an appeal is taken from a specified decision or judgment? | 1 | 1938–1938 |
Satterlee v. Grubb
neutral
1 sentence1891Satterlee v. Grubb, 38 Kas. 234 , is cited as sustaining the claim of the plaintiffs; but, while the language of the opinion may give some reason for the claim, it was not intended to hold that the offer to pay costs was a prerequisite to the hearing and determination of the application. | 1 | 1891–1891 |
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.