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 1900–1945 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 |
|---|---|---|
| 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 |
|---|---|---|
Headley v. Challiss
green
2 sentences1941In Headley v. Challiss, 15 Kan. 602 , this court held: “Where a case is brought a second time on error to this court, the first decision. will be deemed the settled law of the case, and will not be made a subject of reexamination. 1927In Headley v. Challiss, 15 Kan. 602 , the court said: “Where a case is brought a second time on error to this court, the first decision will be deemed the settled law of the case, and'will not be made a subject of reexamination.” (Syl. ft 2.) That rule has been followed in the following eases: Central Branch U. P. B. | 5 | 1900–1941 |
Henry v. Atchison, Topeka & Santa Fe Railway Co.
green
2 sentences1945(See Robertson v. Labette County Comm’rs, supra, and cases cited on page 707.) And, without passing on the question, since its decision is not necessary, it should perhaps be stated the instant case appears to present facts where there is more reason for application of the rule announced in Henry v. Railway Co., 83 Kan. 104 , 109 Pac. 1005 . 1945(See Robertson v. Labette County Comm’rs, supra, and cases cited on page 707.) And, without passing on the question, since its decision is not necessary, it should perhaps be stated the instant case appears to present facts where there is more reason for application of the rule announced in Henry v. Railway Co., 83 Kan. 104 , 109 Pac. 1005 . | 2 | 1941–1945 |
Central Branch Union Pacific Railroad v. Shoup
green
2 sentences1941Co. v. Shoup, 28 Kan. 394 , this court held: “Where a case is brought a second time on error to this court, the first decision will be deemed the settled law of the case, and will not be made the subject of reexamination. 1927Co. v. Shoup, 28 Kan. 394 ; Norton v. Huntoon, 43 Kan. 275 , 22 Pac. 565 ; Modern Woodmen v. Gerdom, 77 Kan. 401 , 94 Pac. 788 ; Railway Co. v. Stone, 80 Kan. 7 , 101 Pac. 666 ; Buck v. Vickers, 80 Kan. 29 , 101 Pac. 668 ; Griffin v. Brick Co., 90 Kan. 375 , 133 Pac. 574 ; Dyson v. Bux, 92 Kan. 154 , 139 Pac. 1159 ;. | 2 | 1927–1941 |
Crockett v. Gray
green
1 sentence1941(Headley v. Challiss, 15 Kan. 602.)” (Syl. ¶ 1.) In Crockett v. Gray, 31 Kan. 346 , 2 Pac. 809 , this court held: “Where a case is decided by this court, on proceedings in error from the district court, that decision becomes the law of the case, for all subsequent proceedings; and this rule covers not merely the points expressly considered and decided, but all questions necessarily involved in the decision.” (Syl. ¶ 3.) See, also, Henry v. Railway Co., 83 Kan. 104 , 109 Pac. 1005 , also, Fitzpatrick v. Bean, 128 Kan. 473 , 279 Pac. 7 . | 1 | 1941–1941 |
Fitzpatrick v. Bean
green
2 sentences1941(Headley v. Challiss, 15 Kan. 602.)” (Syl. ¶ 1.) In Crockett v. Gray, 31 Kan. 346 , 2 Pac. 809 , this court held: “Where a case is decided by this court, on proceedings in error from the district court, that decision becomes the law of the case, for all subsequent proceedings; and this rule covers not merely the points expressly considered and decided, but all questions necessarily involved in the decision.” (Syl. ¶ 3.) See, also, Henry v. Railway Co., 83 Kan. 104 , 109 Pac. 1005 , also, Fitzpatrick v. Bean, 128 Kan. 473 , 279 Pac. 7 . 1941(Headley v. Challiss, 15 Kan. 602.)” (Syl. ¶ 1.) In Crockett v. Gray, 31 Kan. 346 , 2 Pac. 809 , this court held: “Where a case is decided by this court, on proceedings in error from the district court, that decision becomes the law of the case, for all subsequent proceedings; and this rule covers not merely the points expressly considered and decided, but all questions necessarily involved in the decision.” (Syl. ¶ 3.) See, also, Henry v. Railway Co., 83 Kan. 104 , 109 Pac. 1005 , also, Fitzpatrick v. Bean, 128 Kan. 473 , 279 Pac. 7 . | 1 | 1941–1941 |
Norton v. Huntoon
neutral
1 sentence1927Co. v. Shoup, 28 Kan. 394 ; Norton v. Huntoon, 43 Kan. 275 , 22 Pac. 565 ; Modern Woodmen v. Gerdom, 77 Kan. 401 , 94 Pac. 788 ; Railway Co. v. Stone, 80 Kan. 7 , 101 Pac. 666 ; Buck v. Vickers, 80 Kan. 29 , 101 Pac. 668 ; Griffin v. Brick Co., 90 Kan. 375 , 133 Pac. 574 ; Dyson v. Bux, 92 Kan. 154 , 139 Pac. 1159 ;. | 1 | 1927–1927 |
Modern Woodmen of America v. Gerdom
neutral
2 sentences1927Co. v. Shoup, 28 Kan. 394 ; Norton v. Huntoon, 43 Kan. 275 , 22 Pac. 565 ; Modern Woodmen v. Gerdom, 77 Kan. 401 , 94 Pac. 788 ; Railway Co. v. Stone, 80 Kan. 7 , 101 Pac. 666 ; Buck v. Vickers, 80 Kan. 29 , 101 Pac. 668 ; Griffin v. Brick Co., 90 Kan. 375 , 133 Pac. 574 ; Dyson v. Bux, 92 Kan. 154 , 139 Pac. 1159 ;. 1927Co. v. Shoup, 28 Kan. 394 ; Norton v. Huntoon, 43 Kan. 275 , 22 Pac. 565 ; Modern Woodmen v. Gerdom, 77 Kan. 401 , 94 Pac. 788 ; Railway Co. v. Stone, 80 Kan. 7 , 101 Pac. 666 ; Buck v. Vickers, 80 Kan. 29 , 101 Pac. 668 ; Griffin v. Brick Co., 90 Kan. 375 , 133 Pac. 574 ; Dyson v. Bux, 92 Kan. 154 , 139 Pac. 1159 ;. | 1 | 1927–1927 |
Missouri Pacific Railway Co. v. Stone
neutral
2 sentences1927Co. v. Shoup, 28 Kan. 394 ; Norton v. Huntoon, 43 Kan. 275 , 22 Pac. 565 ; Modern Woodmen v. Gerdom, 77 Kan. 401 , 94 Pac. 788 ; Railway Co. v. Stone, 80 Kan. 7 , 101 Pac. 666 ; Buck v. Vickers, 80 Kan. 29 , 101 Pac. 668 ; Griffin v. Brick Co., 90 Kan. 375 , 133 Pac. 574 ; Dyson v. Bux, 92 Kan. 154 , 139 Pac. 1159 ;. 1927Co. v. Shoup, 28 Kan. 394 ; Norton v. Huntoon, 43 Kan. 275 , 22 Pac. 565 ; Modern Woodmen v. Gerdom, 77 Kan. 401 , 94 Pac. 788 ; Railway Co. v. Stone, 80 Kan. 7 , 101 Pac. 666 ; Buck v. Vickers, 80 Kan. 29 , 101 Pac. 668 ; Griffin v. Brick Co., 90 Kan. 375 , 133 Pac. 574 ; Dyson v. Bux, 92 Kan. 154 , 139 Pac. 1159 ;. | 1 | 1927–1927 |
Buck Stove & Range Co. v. Vickers
neutral
2 sentences1927Co. v. Shoup, 28 Kan. 394 ; Norton v. Huntoon, 43 Kan. 275 , 22 Pac. 565 ; Modern Woodmen v. Gerdom, 77 Kan. 401 , 94 Pac. 788 ; Railway Co. v. Stone, 80 Kan. 7 , 101 Pac. 666 ; Buck v. Vickers, 80 Kan. 29 , 101 Pac. 668 ; Griffin v. Brick Co., 90 Kan. 375 , 133 Pac. 574 ; Dyson v. Bux, 92 Kan. 154 , 139 Pac. 1159 ;. 1927Co. v. Shoup, 28 Kan. 394 ; Norton v. Huntoon, 43 Kan. 275 , 22 Pac. 565 ; Modern Woodmen v. Gerdom, 77 Kan. 401 , 94 Pac. 788 ; Railway Co. v. Stone, 80 Kan. 7 , 101 Pac. 666 ; Buck v. Vickers, 80 Kan. 29 , 101 Pac. 668 ; Griffin v. Brick Co., 90 Kan. 375 , 133 Pac. 574 ; Dyson v. Bux, 92 Kan. 154 , 139 Pac. 1159 ;. | 1 | 1927–1927 |
Griffin v. Fredonia Brick Co.
neutral
2 sentences1927Co. v. Shoup, 28 Kan. 394 ; Norton v. Huntoon, 43 Kan. 275 , 22 Pac. 565 ; Modern Woodmen v. Gerdom, 77 Kan. 401 , 94 Pac. 788 ; Railway Co. v. Stone, 80 Kan. 7 , 101 Pac. 666 ; Buck v. Vickers, 80 Kan. 29 , 101 Pac. 668 ; Griffin v. Brick Co., 90 Kan. 375 , 133 Pac. 574 ; Dyson v. Bux, 92 Kan. 154 , 139 Pac. 1159 ;. 1927Co. v. Shoup, 28 Kan. 394 ; Norton v. Huntoon, 43 Kan. 275 , 22 Pac. 565 ; Modern Woodmen v. Gerdom, 77 Kan. 401 , 94 Pac. 788 ; Railway Co. v. Stone, 80 Kan. 7 , 101 Pac. 666 ; Buck v. Vickers, 80 Kan. 29 , 101 Pac. 668 ; Griffin v. Brick Co., 90 Kan. 375 , 133 Pac. 574 ; Dyson v. Bux, 92 Kan. 154 , 139 Pac. 1159 ;. | 1 | 1927–1927 |
Dyson v. Bux
neutral
2 sentences1927Co. v. Shoup, 28 Kan. 394 ; Norton v. Huntoon, 43 Kan. 275 , 22 Pac. 565 ; Modern Woodmen v. Gerdom, 77 Kan. 401 , 94 Pac. 788 ; Railway Co. v. Stone, 80 Kan. 7 , 101 Pac. 666 ; Buck v. Vickers, 80 Kan. 29 , 101 Pac. 668 ; Griffin v. Brick Co., 90 Kan. 375 , 133 Pac. 574 ; Dyson v. Bux, 92 Kan. 154 , 139 Pac. 1159 ;. 1927Co. v. Shoup, 28 Kan. 394 ; Norton v. Huntoon, 43 Kan. 275 , 22 Pac. 565 ; Modern Woodmen v. Gerdom, 77 Kan. 401 , 94 Pac. 788 ; Railway Co. v. Stone, 80 Kan. 7 , 101 Pac. 666 ; Buck v. Vickers, 80 Kan. 29 , 101 Pac. 668 ; Griffin v. Brick Co., 90 Kan. 375 , 133 Pac. 574 ; Dyson v. Bux, 92 Kan. 154 , 139 Pac. 1159 ;. | 1 | 1927–1927 |
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.