Supreme Court of Kansas· 4/10/1992

Martindale v. Tenny

Citations

829 P.2d 561
250 Kan. 621
1992 Kan. LEXIS 92

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

finding that although the action was timely as to corporate defendants because it was filed within 30 days of the screening panel’s opinion, amended petition filed almost 2 years later and naming Tenny as defendant did not relate back
upholding award of $1,000,000 for economic damages in part for loss of parental care and attention and loss of maternal training and guidance
noting that 40-3403[h] and the Medical Malpractice Screening Panel Act, K.S.A. 65-4901 et seq., were enacted as part of an attempt to alleviate the perceived medical malpractice crisis first addressed in 1976 by the Health Care Provider Insurance Availability Act, K.S.A. 40-3401 et seq.
“When a statute is plain and unambiguous, the court must give effect to the intention of the legislature as expressed, rather than determine what the law should or should not be.”
in the absence of ambiguity the court must effect the legislative intent as expressed
courts are the final authority on issues of statutory construction

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Judges: Holmes

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Cited by

153 cases in this archive cite this case; the 20 most cited are listed.

Cites

17 cases in this archive are cited by this case.

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.