6 Kansas opinions name it 2 courts 1913–1997 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 |
|---|---|---|
Chiles v. Stategreen1 sentence1994Therefore, the provision was not a violation of the Equal Protection or Due Process Clauses of the United States Constitution. 254 Kan. at 901, 903 . | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Kansas. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Jackson v. City of Kansas City
green
1 sentence1997Jackson comments that Kansas case law regarding immunity for governmental functions which predates the tort claims act is helpful in construing the fire and police immunity provision. 235 Kan. at 291 . | 1 | 1997–1997 |
In Re the Marriage of Schletzbaum
green
1 sentence1993In' referring to section E, child support adjustments, this court has held, pursuant to Kansas Supreme Court Administrative Order No. 75, that the trial court must “make written findings or specific findings on the record, which shall be included in the journal entry, as to the reasons for any deviation from the Net Parental Child Support Obligation on Line D.9.” (Emphasis added.) In re Marriage of Schletzbaum, 15 Kan. | 1 | 1993–1993 |
Thompson v. General Finance Co., Inc.
green
2 sentences1987Thompson v. General Finance Co., Inc., 205 Kan. 76, 93 , 468 P.2d 269 (1970). 1987Thompson v. General Finance Co., Inc., 205 Kan. 76, 93 , 468 P.2d 269 (1970). | 1 | 1987–1987 |
Phenix Insurance v. Stahl
neutral
2 sentences1914This question was involved in Insurance Co. v. Knerr, supra, and there it was said that: secure place not exposed to a fire that would destroy the building in which the insured property was kept.” (p. 389.) “Conceding that the agent issuing the policy was familiar with the insured store building and stock, and knew that the insured did not keep an iron safe, and that he issued the policy knowing the existence of these conditions, that could not be construed into a waiver of the obligation of the insured to keep the books at night, and when the store was not open for business, in some (See, als 1914This question was involved in Insurance Co. v. Knerr, supra, and there it was said that: secure place not exposed to a fire that would destroy the building in which the insured property was kept.” (p. 389.) “Conceding that the agent issuing the policy was familiar with the insured store building and stock, and knew that the insured did not keep an iron safe, and that he issued the policy knowing the existence of these conditions, that could not be construed into a waiver of the obligation of the insured to keep the books at night, and when the store was not open for business, in some (See, als | 1 | 1914–1914 |
Adams Express Company v. Croninger
green
1 sentence1913Both arguments have been fully answered in Adams Express Co. v. Croninger, 226 U. S. 491 ; C., B. & Q. | 1 | 1913–1913 |
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.