6 Kansas opinions name it 2 courts 1900–2021 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 |
|---|---|---|
Hartzell v. Magee
neutral
2 sentences1937IF 2.) The case of Hartzell v. Magee, 60 Kan. 646 , 57 Pac. 502 , was a case of an attempted appeal from a judgment rendered in the district court to the court of appeals without a proper summons in error, and it was held by this court that— “The fact that a defendant in error includes in his brief arguments on the merits as well as arguments for the dismissal of the proceeding for want of jurisdiction will not estop him to deny the jurisdiction of the court. 1937IF 2.) The case of Hartzell v. Magee, 60 Kan. 646 , 57 Pac. 502 , was a case of an attempted appeal from a judgment rendered in the district court to the court of appeals without a proper summons in error, and it was held by this court that— “The fact that a defendant in error includes in his brief arguments on the merits as well as arguments for the dismissal of the proceeding for want of jurisdiction will not estop him to deny the jurisdiction of the court. | 2 | 1900–1937 |
Dexter v. Cochran
green
2 sentences2021The court held that the finding was evidence of the legal authenticity of the summons and that the presumption for good service was "not overthrown by the fact that in the record presented no copy or mark of a seal is annexed to the summons therein set forth." 17 Kan. at 450 . 5 As the court noted, the passage of time could have removed a seal that was present at the time the summons was served. 17 Kan. at 450 . 2021The court held that the finding was evidence of the legal authenticity of the summons and that the presumption for good service was "not overthrown by the fact that in the record presented no copy or mark of a seal is annexed to the summons therein set forth." 17 Kan. at 450 . 5 As the court noted, the passage of time could have removed a seal that was present at the time the summons was served. 17 Kan. at 450 . | 1 | 2021–2021 |
In Re Estate of Antonopoulos
green
1 sentence2005See K.S.A. 8-1020(p); Estate of Antonopoulos, 268 Kan. at 189 . 5. | 1 | 2005–2005 |
Garfield Township v. Theis
neutral
1 sentence1912App. 770 , 59 Pac. 42 , the requirement of the former code that a summons in error be served “as in the commencement of an action” (p. 771) was held jurisdictional, and the reading by the sheriff of the summons in error to the defendant who “ ‘then and there took said writ into his own hands and read it and returned it to the affiant (sheriff) without demanding a copy thereof; that subsequently, when this affiant’s attention was called to the fact that he. had not given said Theis a copy of the writ, that affiant spoke to said Theis about it, and he, the said Theis, said he would fix it up, or | 1 | 1912–1912 |
Sharman v. Huot
neutral
2 sentences1903Dig. 2795-2797.) The case of Sharman v. Huot, 20 Mont. 555 , 52 Pac. 558 , 63 Am. 1903Dig. 2795-2797.) The case of Sharman v. Huot, 20 Mont. 555 , 52 Pac. 558 , 63 Am. | 1 | 1903–1903 |
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.