Supreme Court of Kansas· 12/6/1991
Enlow v. Sears, Roebuck & Co.
Citations
- 822 P.2d 617
- 249 Kan. 732
- 1991 Kan. LEXIS 198
How courts have described this case
Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.
- holding that one attacking evidentiary rulings must show an abuse of discretion
- refusing to address issue where appellant failed to specify error or cite legal authority supporting argument in brief
- court did not address appellant’s argument because appellant failed to specify the error in the jury instructions
- argument that evidence was improperly excluded will not be considered for the first time on appeal where no proffer was made pursuant to K.S.A. 60-405
- reference to transcript, instructions without specifying error or citing legal authority violates Supreme Court Rule 6.02[a][5] [2024 Kan. S. Ct. R. at 36]; prevents review of merits
- “Enlow does not specify the error or cite legal authority supporting her contention.”
Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).
Judges: Herd
Read full opinion on CourtListenerCited by
38 cases in this archive cite this case; the 20 most cited are listed.
- Smith v. PrintupSupreme Court of Kansas· 1993-12-30· cited 120×
- Jones v. HansenSupreme Court of Kansas· 1994-01-21· cited 93×
- State v. BryantSupreme Court of Kansas· 2008-03-28· cited 70×
- Mark Twain Kansas City Bank v. Kroh Bros. DevelopmentSupreme Court of Kansas· 1992-04-10· cited 37×
- Zenda Grain & Supply Co. v. Farmland Industries, Inc.Court of Appeals of Kansas· 1995-03-31· cited 34×
- State v. DrachSupreme Court of Kansas· 2000-03-10· cited 33×
- Rose v. via Christi Health System, Inc.Supreme Court of Kansas· 2003-10-31· cited 32×
- Osterhaus v. SchunkSupreme Court of Kansas· 2011-03-11· cited 27×
- Golconda Screw, Inc. v. West Bottoms Ltd.Court of Appeals of Kansas· 1995-04-28· cited 24×
- Shirley v. SmithSupreme Court of Kansas· 1997-03-07· cited 22×
- City of Olathe v. StottSupreme Court of Kansas· 1993-10-29· cited 21×
- In Re Application of American Restaurant OperationsSupreme Court of Kansas· 1998-04-17· cited 21×
- St. Francis Regional Medical Center, Inc. v. WeissSupreme Court of Kansas· 1994-03-04· cited 19×
- Morsey v. Chevron, USA, Inc.Tenth Circuit· 1996-09-04· cited 18×
- Jenkins v. T.S.I. Holdings, Inc.Supreme Court of Kansas· 2000-03-10· cited 18×
- State v. LeeSupreme Court of Kansas· 1997-10-31· cited 17×
- Smith v. Massey-Ferguson, Inc.Supreme Court of Kansas· 1994-10-28· cited 17×
- Ortiz v. BiscaninCourt of Appeals of Kansas· 2004-12-03· cited 17×
- State v. AllisonSupreme Court of Kansas· 1996-01-26· cited 14×
- City of Shawnee, Kan. v. AT & T CORP.D. Kansas· 1995-12-22· cited 14×
Cites
13 cases in this archive are cited by this case.
- Schmeck v. City of ShawneeSupreme Court of Kansas· 1982-09-17· cited 113×
- Greenstein, Logan & Co. v. Burgess Marketing, Inc.Tex. App. Ct., 10th Dist. (Waco)· 1987-11-05· cited 109×
- Stayton v. StaytonSupreme Court of Kansas· 1973-03-03· cited 100×
- Fudge v. City of Kansas CitySupreme Court of Kansas· 1986-06-13· cited 100×
- Lostutter v. Estate of LarkinSupreme Court of Kansas· 1984-03-24· cited 55×
- Baker v. City of Garden CitySupreme Court of Kansas· 1987-01-16· cited 55×
- Lone Star Industries, Inc. v. Secretary of the Kansas Department of TransportationSupreme Court of Kansas· 1983-10-21· cited 40×
- Lantz v. City of LawrenceSupreme Court of Kansas· 1983-01-14· cited 38×
- State v. NorwoodSupreme Court of Kansas· 1975-05-10· cited 36×
- Kansas State Bank v. Overseas Motosport, Inc.Supreme Court of Kansas· 1977-04-09· cited 29×
- Morris v. FranciscoSupreme Court of Kansas· 1985-10-25· cited 21×
- Reich v. ReichSupreme Court of Kansas· 1984-04-27· cited 17×
- Stevens v. Jayhawk Realty Co.Supreme Court of Kansas· 1984-10-26· cited 15×
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.