Supreme Court of Kansas· 12/7/2001
Canaan v. Bartee
Citations
- 35 P.3d 841
- 272 Kan. 720
- 2001 Kan. LEXIS 941
How courts have described this case
Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.
- holding that the decision to impose sanctions upon a party for violating a discovery order lies within the trial court's discretion
- reversing the district court’s initial ruling in favor of the inmate who had appeared only by phone
- reversing the district court's initial ruling in favor of the inmate who had appeared only by phone
- setting aside a default judgment that was the direct result of actions taken by defense counsel
- where attorney's conduct resulted in dismissal as a discovery sanction, the district court erred when it failed to set aside the judgment
- abuse of discretion because court entered default without considering lesser sanctions
Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).
Judges: Six
Read full opinion on CourtListenerCited by
13 cases in this archive cite this case.
- State v. DavissonSupreme Court of Kansas· 2016-03-25· cited 76×
- State v. JohnsonSupreme Court of Kansas· 2013-05-03· cited 60×
- State v. GreeverSupreme Court of Kansas· 2008-05-16· cited 31×
- United States v. CamickTenth Circuit· 2015-07-31· cited 31×
- City of Neodesha v. BP Corp. North America, Inc.Court of Appeals of Kansas· 2014-08-22· cited 25×
- Morton County Hospital v. HowellCourt of Appeals of Kansas· 2015-10-30· cited 16×
- Fischer v. StateCourt of Appeals of Kansas· 2009-04-17· cited 12×
- Board of County Commissioners v. City of Park CityCourt of Appeals of Kansas· 2009-04-03· cited 6×
- DEUTSCHE BANK NAT. TRUST CO. v. SumnerCourt of Appeals of Kansas· 2010-10-29· cited 4×
- Lara v. VasquezCourt of Appeals of Kansas· 2004-10-08· cited 4×
- Deutsche Bank National Trust Co. v. SumnerCourt of Appeals of Kansas· 2010-10-29· cited 1×
- State v. BuserSupreme Court of Kansas· 2015-09-25· cited 1×
- Stout v. KanEquip, Inc.Court of Appeals of Kansas· 2024-06-28· cited 1×
Cites
34 cases in this archive are cited by this case; the 20 most cited are listed.
- Securities and Exchange Commission v. Robert J. McNulty George G. Handgis, Franklin D. Roberts, John M. Shanklin and W.N. Thompson, John M. ShanklinSecond Circuit· 1998-03-03· cited 434×
- William Harmon v. Csx Transportation, Inc.Sixth Circuit· 1997-05-09· cited 354×
- Coscia v. McKenna & CuneoCalifornia Supreme Court· 2001-07-02· cited 165×
- Webb v. District of ColumbiaD.C. Circuit· 1998-07-07· cited 137×
- Louis M. Damiani, M.D. v. Rhode Island HospitalFirst Circuit· 1983-04-27· cited 134×
- Horton v. McCarySupreme Court of Louisiana· 1994-04-11· cited 126×
- Florida Physician's Insurance Company, Inc. v. David O. EhlersEleventh Circuit· 1993-12-07· cited 110×
- Inryco, Inc. v. Metropolitan Engineering Company, Inc., and American Fidelity Fire Insurance CompanySeventh Circuit· 1983-05-23· cited 98×
- John P. Comiskey v. Jftj Corporation, D/B/A Tops Bar & GrillEighth Circuit· 1993-04-06· cited 97×
- State v. CanaanSupreme Court of Kansas· 1998-07-24· cited 53×
- Smith v. PrintupSupreme Court of Kansas· 1997-06-06· cited 50×
- Jenkins v. ArnoldSupreme Court of Kansas· 1978-01-21· cited 48×
- Vickers v. City of Kansas CitySupreme Court of Kansas· 1975-01-25· cited 33×
- Hawkins v. DennisSupreme Court of Kansas· 1995-10-27· cited 30×
- Binyon v. NessethSupreme Court of Kansas· 1982-06-11· cited 29×
- Wayne Cook Enterprises, Inc. v. Fain Properties Ltd. PartnershipCourt of Appeals of Arizona· 1999-08-02· cited 25×
- Fields v. Stauffer Publications, Inc.Court of Appeals of Kansas· 1978-05-19· cited 23×
- Reliance Insurance Companies v. Thompson-Hayward Chemical Co.Supreme Court of Kansas· 1974-03-02· cited 23×
- Hobert Jones v. W.J. Estelle, Jr., Director, Texas Department of CorrectionsFifth Circuit· 1982-12-14· cited 19×
- Wallace, Saunders, Austin, Brown & Enochs, Chartered v. Louisburg Grain Co.Supreme Court of Kansas· 1992-01-17· cited 19×
Sourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).
This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.