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.
6 Kansas opinions name it 2 courts 1892–2010 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 |
|---|---|---|
Saucedo v. Wingergreen2 sentences2010Ed. 2d 359 , 110 S. Ct. 2447 (1990) (legal conclusions and fact findings upon which discretionary decision based reviewable for abuse of discretion; district court necessarily abuses its discretion if ruling based on an “erroneous view of the law or on a clearly erroneous assessment of the evidence”); cf. Saucedo v. Winger, 252 Kan. 718 , Syl. ¶ 4, 850 P.2d 908 (1993) (“A decision which is contrary to the evidence or the law is sometimes referred to as an abuse of discretion, but it is nothing more than an erroneous decision or a judgment rendered in violation of law.”); see also Flautt & Mann 2010Ed. 2d 359 , 110 S. Ct. 2447 (1990) (legal conclusions and fact findings upon which discretionary decision based reviewable for abuse of discretion; district court necessarily abuses its discretion if ruling based on an “erroneous view of the law or on a clearly erroneous assessment of the evidence”); cf. Saucedo v. Winger, 252 Kan. 718 , Syl. ¶ 4, 850 P.2d 908 (1993) (“A decision which is contrary to the evidence or the law is sometimes referred to as an abuse of discretion, but it is nothing more than an erroneous decision or a judgment rendered in violation of law.”); see also Flautt & Mann | 1 | 3 |
Flautt & Mann v. Council of City of Memphisgreen1 sentence2010Ed. 2d 359 , 110 S. Ct. 2447 (1990) (legal conclusions and fact findings upon which discretionary decision based reviewable for abuse of discretion; district court necessarily abuses its discretion if ruling based on an “erroneous view of the law or on a clearly erroneous assessment of the evidence”); cf. Saucedo v. Winger, 252 Kan. 718 , Syl. ¶ 4, 850 P.2d 908 (1993) (“A decision which is contrary to the evidence or the law is sometimes referred to as an abuse of discretion, but it is nothing more than an erroneous decision or a judgment rendered in violation of law.”); see also Flautt & Mann | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Kansas. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Cooter & Gell v. Hartmarx Corp.
red
1 sentence2010Ed. 2d 359 , 110 S. Ct. 2447 (1990) (legal conclusions and fact findings upon which discretionary decision based reviewable for abuse of discretion; district court necessarily abuses its discretion if ruling based on an “erroneous view of the law or on a clearly erroneous assessment of the evidence”); cf. Saucedo v. Winger, 252 Kan. 718 , Syl. ¶ 4, 850 P.2d 908 (1993) (“A decision which is contrary to the evidence or the law is sometimes referred to as an abuse of discretion, but it is nothing more than an erroneous decision or a judgment rendered in violation of law.”); see also Flautt & Mann | 1 | 2010–2010 |
Fitch v. State Highway Commission
neutral
2 sentences1997Sigg relies on our statement from Saucedo v. Winger, 252 Kan. 718, 730 , 850 P.2d 908 (1993), that “[a] decision which is contrary to the evidence or the law is sometimes referred to as an abuse of discretion, but it is nothing more than an erroneous decision, or a judgment rendered in violation of law.” This court has previously held in Foster v. City of Augusta, 174 Kan. 324, 331 , 256 P.2d 121 (1953): “It is a rule of this court that whether a verdict was or was not a quotient verdict is a question of fact for the trial court to determine (Fitch v. State Highway Comm., 137 Kan. 584, 587 , 2 1997Sigg relies on our statement from Saucedo v. Winger, 252 Kan. 718, 730 , 850 P.2d 908 (1993), that “[a] decision which is contrary to the evidence or the law is sometimes referred to as an abuse of discretion, but it is nothing more than an erroneous decision, or a judgment rendered in violation of law.” This court has previously held in Foster v. City of Augusta, 174 Kan. 324, 331 , 256 P.2d 121 (1953): “It is a rule of this court that whether a verdict was or was not a quotient verdict is a question of fact for the trial court to determine (Fitch v. State Highway Comm., 137 Kan. 584, 587 , 2 | 1 | 1997–1997 |
Foster v. City of Augusta
green
2 sentences1997Sigg relies on our statement from Saucedo v. Winger, 252 Kan. 718, 730 , 850 P.2d 908 (1993), that “[a] decision which is contrary to the evidence or the law is sometimes referred to as an abuse of discretion, but it is nothing more than an erroneous decision, or a judgment rendered in violation of law.” This court has previously held in Foster v. City of Augusta, 174 Kan. 324, 331 , 256 P.2d 121 (1953): “It is a rule of this court that whether a verdict was or was not a quotient verdict is a question of fact for the trial court to determine (Fitch v. State Highway Comm., 137 Kan. 584, 587 , 2 1997Sigg relies on our statement from Saucedo v. Winger, 252 Kan. 718, 730 , 850 P.2d 908 (1993), that “[a] decision which is contrary to the evidence or the law is sometimes referred to as an abuse of discretion, but it is nothing more than an erroneous decision, or a judgment rendered in violation of law.” This court has previously held in Foster v. City of Augusta, 174 Kan. 324, 331 , 256 P.2d 121 (1953): “It is a rule of this court that whether a verdict was or was not a quotient verdict is a question of fact for the trial court to determine (Fitch v. State Highway Comm., 137 Kan. 584, 587 , 2 | 1 | 1997–1997 |
Taylor v. State
green
2 sentences1993Griffin v. State, 12 Ga. App. 615, 621 , 77 S.E. 1080 (1913). 1993Griffin v. State, 12 Ga. App. 615, 621 , 77 S.E. 1080 (1913). | 1 | 1993–1993 |
Griffin v. State
green
2 sentences1993Griffin v. State, 12 Ga. App. 615, 621 , 77 S.E. 1080 (1913). 1993Griffin v. State, 12 Ga. App. 615, 621 , 77 S.E. 1080 (1913). | 1 | 1993–1993 |
Thorn v. Salmonson
neutral
1 sentence1970(Thorn v. Salmonson, 37 Kan. 441 , 15 Pac. 588 .) A collateral attack of a judgment rendered in violation of the rule established in Gideon v. Wainwright, supra, does not offend the principle of full faith and credit. | 1 | 1970–1970 |
Buettinger v. Hurley
neutral
2 sentences1892Two sufficient answers dispose of this contention: First, article 13 of procedure before justices, relating to forcible entry and detainer, provides that “Judgments, either before a justice or in the district court, in an action brought under this article, shall not be a bar to any after action brought by either party.” (Buettinger v. Hurley, 34 Kas. 585 ; Waite v. Teeters, 36 id. 604 .) If the judgment rendered is no bar, the doctrine of estoppel by a verdict will not apply in this case. 1892Two sufficient answers dispose of this contention: First, article 13 of procedure before justices, relating to forcible entry and detainer, provides that “Judgments, either before a justice or in the district court, in an action brought under this article, shall not be a bar to any after action brought by either party.” (Buettinger v. Hurley, 34 Kas. 585 ; Waite v. Teeters, 36 id. 604 .) If the judgment rendered is no bar, the doctrine of estoppel by a verdict will not apply in this case. | 1 | 1892–1892 |
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.