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 1997–2024 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 |
|---|---|---|
Safeco Insurance Co. of America v. Allengreen2 sentences2001See Safeco, 262 Kan. at 822 . 2001Co. of America v. Allen, 262 Kan. 811 , Syl. ¶ 1, 941 P.2d 1365 (1997). | 1 | 2 |
Ling v. Jan's Liquorsgreen2 sentences2024See, e.g., In re K.M.H., 285 Kan. at 60 (applying First Restatement to contract dispute); Brenner v. Oppenheimer & Co., 273 Kan. 525, 540 , 44 P.3d 364 (2002) ("'Kansas follows the lex loci rule, not the 'most significant relationship' rule'" in the Second Restatement.); Ling v. Jan's Liquors, 237 Kan. 629, 634 , 703 P.2d 731 (1985) ("[T]he law of the state where the tort occurred—lex loci delicti—should apply."). 2024See, e.g., In re K.M.H., 285 Kan. at 60 (applying First Restatement to contract dispute); Brenner v. Oppenheimer & Co., 273 Kan. 525, 540 , 44 P.3d 364 (2002) ("'Kansas follows the lex loci rule, not the 'most significant relationship' rule'" in the Second Restatement.); Ling v. Jan's Liquors, 237 Kan. 629, 634 , 703 P.2d 731 (1985) ("[T]he law of the state where the tort occurred—lex loci delicti—should apply."). | 1 | 1 |
In re K.M.H.green1 sentence2024See, e.g., In re K.M.H., 285 Kan. at 60 (applying First Restatement to contract dispute); Brenner v. Oppenheimer & Co., 273 Kan. 525, 540 , 44 P.3d 364 (2002) ("'Kansas follows the lex loci rule, not the 'most significant relationship' rule'" in the Second Restatement.); Ling v. Jan's Liquors, 237 Kan. 629, 634 , 703 P.2d 731 (1985) ("[T]he law of the state where the tort occurred—lex loci delicti—should apply."). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Kansas. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
St. Paul Surplus Lines Insurance v. International Playtex, Inc.
green
2 sentences2002Co. v. International Playtex, Inc., 245 Kan. 258, 270 , 777 P.2d 1259 (1989), cert. denied 493 U.S. 1036 (1990), we observed that Kansas follows the lex loci rule, not the ‘most significant relationship’ rule set out in Restatement (Second) of Conflict of Laws § 188 (1969). 2002Co. v. International Playtex, Inc., 245 Kan. 258, 270 , 777 P.2d 1259 (1989), cert. denied 493 U.S. 1036 (1990), we observed that Kansas follows the lex loci rule, not the ‘most significant relationship’ rule set out in Restatement (Second) of Conflict of Laws § 188 (1969). | 3 | 1997–2002 |
Barbour v. Campbell
green
2 sentences2002We did, however, state that Kansas would not apply the law of another state if it violated Kansas public policy, and quoted the following from Barbour v. Campbell, 101 Kan. 616, 617 , 168 Pac. 879 (1917): ‘ “Ordinarily a contract which is valid where made is valid everywhere, but there is a well-known exception to that rule. 2002We did, however, state that Kansas would not apply the law of another state if it violated Kansas public policy, and quoted the following from Barbour v. Campbell, 101 Kan. 616, 617 , 168 Pac. 879 (1917): ‘ “Ordinarily a contract which is valid where made is valid everywhere, but there is a well-known exception to that rule. | 2 | 1997–2002 |
Krozser v. Connecticut
green
2 sentences2002Co. v. International Playtex, Inc., 245 Kan. 258, 270 , 777 P.2d 1259 (1989), cert. denied 493 U.S. 1036 (1990), we observed that Kansas follows the lex loci rule, not the ‘most significant relationship’ rule set out in Restatement (Second) of Conflict of Laws § 188 (1969). 1997Co. v. International Playtex, Inc., 245 Kan. 258, 270 , 777 P.2d 1259 (1989), cert. denied 493 U.S. 1036 (1990), we observed that Kansas follows the lex loci rule, not the “most significant relationship” rule set out in Restatement (Second) of Conflict of Laws § 188 (1969). | 2 | 1997–2002 |
Brenner v. Oppenheimer & Co.
green
2 sentences2024See, e.g., In re K.M.H., 285 Kan. at 60 (applying First Restatement to contract dispute); Brenner v. Oppenheimer & Co., 273 Kan. 525, 540 , 44 P.3d 364 (2002) ("'Kansas follows the lex loci rule, not the 'most significant relationship' rule'" in the Second Restatement.); Ling v. Jan's Liquors, 237 Kan. 629, 634 , 703 P.2d 731 (1985) ("[T]he law of the state where the tort occurred—lex loci delicti—should apply."). 2024See, e.g., In re K.M.H., 285 Kan. at 60 (applying First Restatement to contract dispute); Brenner v. Oppenheimer & Co., 273 Kan. 525, 540 , 44 P.3d 364 (2002) ("'Kansas follows the lex loci rule, not the 'most significant relationship' rule'" in the Second Restatement.); Ling v. Jan's Liquors, 237 Kan. 629, 634 , 703 P.2d 731 (1985) ("[T]he law of the state where the tort occurred—lex loci delicti—should apply."). | 1 | 2024–2024 |
Hartford Accident & Indemnity Co. v. American Red Ball Transit Co.
green
2 sentences2001Co. v. American Red Ball Transit Co., 262 Kan. 570, 574-75 , 938 P.2d 1281 (1997) (generally Kansas follows the lex loci rule except when public policy requires otherwise); St. 2001Co. v. American Red Ball Transit Co., 262 Kan. 570, 574-75 , 938 P.2d 1281 (1997) (generally Kansas follows the lex loci rule except when public policy requires otherwise); St. | 1 | 2001–2001 |
Simms v. Metropolitan Life Insurance
green
1 sentence1997The defendants argued that the trial court erred in applying Kansas law to deny insurance coverage of the punitive damages, relying on the lex loci rule in Simms, 9 Kan. | 1 | 1997–1997 |
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.