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 1926–2022 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 |
|---|---|---|
| No positive-treatment citations attached to this issue in Kansas. | ||
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Kansas. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Brown v. Keill
green
2 sentences2009The maintenance of a claim by plaintiff against a joined party is not a prerequisite to securing comparison. [Brown,] 224 Kan. 195 , Syl. ¶ 6. 1982Brown v. Keill, 224 Kan. 195 , Syl. ¶ 6. | 3 | 1980–2009 |
Kennedy v. City of Sawyer
green
2 sentences2022"The maintenance of a claim by plaintiff against a joined party is not a prerequisite to securing comparison." 228 Kan. at 460 . 2016It is more accurately described as one-trial rule, instead of one-action rule.). • Timely Claim Against Joined Party—The maintenance of a claim by the plaintiff against a joined party “is not a prerequisite to securing comparison.” Kennedy, 228 Kan. at 460 . | 2 | 2016–2022 |
State v. Bell
neutral
2 sentences1926In State v. Bell, 107 Kan. 707, 714 , 193 Pac. 373 , this court said: “The court is vested with considerable discretion in the matter of requiring elections in such cases, and the order is only to be made in furtherance of justice and where the evidence is such as to require it.” The judgment of the trial court on counts 5, 6 and 12 is reversed, and on counts 7, 14 and 17 it is affirmed. 1926In State v. Bell, 107 Kan. 707, 714 , 193 Pac. 373 , this court said: “The court is vested with considerable discretion in the matter of requiring elections in such cases, and the order is only to be made in furtherance of justice and where the evidence is such as to require it.” The judgment of the trial court on counts 5, 6 and 12 is reversed, and on counts 7, 14 and 17 it is affirmed. | 1 | 1926–1926 |
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.