Section applied to act for granting pensions by county commissioners. Rural High School Joint District, 117 K. 332, 334, 231 P. 337. Lowe v. Surpas Resource Corp., 253 1209, 1249 (2003). Second clause; construction of language and tariff by KCC unreasonable as matter of law. Kansas Children's Home, 159 K. 325, 331, 154 P. 2d 137.
Gardner v. Anderson, 116 K. 431, 435, 227 P. 743. Jackson v. Oklahoma Memorial Hosp., 1995 OK 112, ¶15 n. 35, 909 P. 2d 765, 773 n. 35. Date: March 31, 1976. Rogers v board of road commissioners boac. Lewis Grieco et al., Petitioners-appellants, v. Larry Meachum, Warden, et al., Respondents-appellees. Rule for construction of conflicting statutes considered. Term "quasi contract" defined. Dodson v. City of Ulysses, 219 K. 418, 427, 529 P. 2d 430.
The ground on which the constitutionality of the 1943 amendment to section 24 of the court of claims act was upheld in Benson v. 66, as against the assertion that said section 24 was not within the title of the court of claims act, was as follows: "The title of the court of claims act broadly refers to the jurisdiction of the court over all claims that may be asserted against the State, and, in a general way, to the powers and duties of the court. Montgomery v. Barton, 212 K. 368, 510 P. 2d 1187. Plaintiff claims in her declaration that the placing of the snow fence there was with the distinct understanding and agreement between the defendant and decedent that all of the fence together with the anchor posts should be removed by defendant at the end of each winter season, when the necessity for snow fences for that season no longer existed. Words and phrases construed according to approved use of language. Wilford E. Thatcher et al., Appellants, v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, Appellee. Though the constitution allows legislative bodies a certain amount of leeway in economic and business regulation, see Williamson v. Lee Optical, Inc., 348 U. Read v. Miller, 247 K. 557, 561, 802 P. 2d 528 (1990). Tiger invites Arnold to a party at his house. Taylor v. Rogers v board of road commissioners approve. Perdition Minerals Group, Ltd., 244 K. 126, 131, 766 P. 2d 805 (1988).
Laws § 13862-26 (supp. Appellants' right of freedom of association is in no way diminished because the issue arises in an economic matter. The scope of the court of claims act is plainly set forth in its title, as follows: "An act to create a court of claims; and to prescribe its jurisdiction, powers and duties, the practice and procedure therein, and the time within which actions against the State and any department, commission, board, institution, arm or agency thereof may be brought. "Under legal disability" applied to person afflicted with "morphinomania. " The presumption applies here. 2d 385 (1977) as analogous to the subject case. Plaintiff claims that such was the arrangement for the winter season of 1943-1944, that the arrangement was renewed for the winter season of 1944-1945, and that in the spring of 1945 the defendant's agents and employees removed the snow fence but did not remove a steel anchor post which protruded from 6 to 8 inches above the ground. Snattinger v. Topeka, 80 K. 341, 344, 102 P. 508. Index of Contents (Sunshine lawsuits. The term "person" in 60-308 includes bodies politic and corporate. Thurman-Watts v. Board of Education, 115 K. 328, 332, 222 P. 123. 2019 Amended & Repealed Statutes. Tiger will be liable here because he intended for the ball to land on Arnold's property. State of Louisiana et al., Petitioners, v. Federal Power Commission, Respondent, united Gas Pipe Line Company et al., Intervenors, international Paper Company et al., Petitioners, v. Federal Power Commission, Respondent, gulf States Utilities Company et al., Intervenors. We adopt the Pentco reasoning to analyze and to ultimately strike down the recordkeeping requirement in this case.
Defendants to Counterclaim in D. )commonwealth of Pennsylvania et al. Term "ratification, " as used in agency law, defined. In Bittner we relied upon our earlier opinion in State ex rel. Guss Maggitt, Appellant, v. Donald Wyrick, Warden, Missouri State Penitentiary, Appellee.
P 95, 498manes Merrit et al., Appellants, v. Libby, Mcneill & Libby, et al., Appellees. The trial court in the present case observed that an unobstructed doorway would protect patrons in case of fire. 6 The focus in summary process is not on the facts which might be proven at trial, but rather on whether the tendered proof in the record reveals only undisputed material facts supporting but a single inference that favors the movant's quest for relief. Hollenbeck v. Lyon, 142 K. 352, 357, 47 P. 2d 63. James E. Lewis, Appellant, v. C. Department of Corrections. Hansford v. Rogers v. Board of Road Comm’rs for Kent County –. Burdge, 8 K. 162, 55 P. 472. "Residence" means the place which is adopted by a person as the person's place of habitation and to which, whenever the person is absent, the person has the intention of returning. Words importing the masculine gender only may be extended to females. 2d 500, 502-03 (Fla. 1992).
First National Bank in Dallas v. Lowman, 193 K. 349, 352, 394 P. 2d 313. Elimination of retrospective clause in limitations act does not affect accrued rights. After an opinion was filed in this cause a rehearing was granted on the question of defendant's governmental immunity from liability for acts of trespass and negligence by its agents and employees. United States of America, Plaintiff-appellant, v. Umberto Jose Chavez et al., Defendants-appellees. Boicourt Hunting Ass'n, 183 K. 187, 189, 326 P. 533 F.2d - Volume 533 of the Federal Reporter, 2nd Series :: US Federal Case Law :: Justia. 2d 277. Local 742, United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners Ofamerica, et al., Petitioners, v. National Labor Relations Board, Respondent, j. Simmons Company, Intervenor. Ruling that person not resident owner of real property sustained. Term "novation, " as recognized in contract law, defined. Reverend Charles H. Nevett et al., Individually, and Onbehalf of All Others Similarly Situated, plaintiffs-appellees Cross Appellants, v. Lawrence G. Sides, Individually, and in His Capacity Asmayor of Fairfield, Alabama, et al., defendants-appellants Cross Appellees. Not applicable to statute creating liability and fixing time for bringing action.
Gaglio v. City of New York (C. C. A. United States v. Amaya. Co., 240 K. Rogers v board of road commissioners office. 229, 729 P. 2d 1160 (1986). COCA held that a utility company does not owe a duty of care to travelers on roads adjacent to its power lines which are under its maintenance. The statute is thus only "partially vague"; i. e., it is vague as to only some conduct. Moreover, after a careful examination of the classes of persons exempted from the minimum education requirements of the code, it becomes increasingly difficult to *707 believe that protection of the public's health is the true aim of the amendments.
Cited; repeal of 40-3107(i)(1) covering household exclusion clauses in motor vehicle liability insurance policies applied prospectively. According to plaintiffs, Utility Company owes a duty of care to motorists traveling on the adjoining roadway, or, in the alternative, at least a duty to warn of a hazardous condition within its control, and that its breach of this duty directly caused plaintiffs' injuries. They are in fact no less than public agencies of the State, invested by it with their particular powers, but with no power to decline the functions devolved upon them, and hence, are clothed with the same immunity from liability as the State itself. "Undertaking" means a promise or security in any form where required by law. Unless during the period covered by the life of section 24 of this act, the legislature intended to preserve greater immunity in a case involving a county than that involving the State, it must be held that the waiver of governmental immunity extended to claims against counties. Immunity of the State from liability, for torts alleged to have been committed by its officers and employees, on the ground that the alleged tortfeasors were engaged in a governmental function, is a matter of defense which the State, in the absence of any statute to the contrary, may interpose in any suit brought against the State in the court of claims.
keepcovidfree.net, 2024