Phillips v. Okey
Citations
- 111 Kan. 732
- 207 P. 1106
- 1922 Kan. LEXIS 335
Syllabus
<p>SYLLABUS BY THE COURT.</p> <p>1. Compensation Act — Death of Workman — Cause of Death Not Proven. In an action for compensation for the death of an employee on the ground that his injury and consequent death were caused by breathing bad air in his employer’s mine, when the state of the evidence was such that the trial court was constrained to find that there was “not sufficient evidence to show that the death [of the workman] was caused by, or contributed to, by the breathing of the bad air,” and when the evidence was uncertain as to what did cause the workman’s death, there was no error in the trial court’s refusal to make a finding thereon.</p> <p>2. Same — Findings of Fact — In Harmony with Evidence. The findings of fact were in harmony with the evidence to which the trial court gave credence, and they were sufficiently pertinent and comprehensive to satisfy the mandate of the civil code, section 297.</p> <p>3. Same — Findings of Facts — Discretion of Court. In making findings of -fact as required by the civil code, section 297, the trial court is not bound to adopt and follow a categorical outline of questions of fact submitted by the litigants or either of them.</p>
How courts have described this case
Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.
- holding that a declaratory judgment must be founded upon some entitlement to substantive relief
- holding that a declaratory judgment must be founded upon some entitlement to substantive relief
- concluding that “[c]laims for declaratory relief necessarily derive from claims for substantive relief’
- noting that “it would be premature and unwise, to say the least, for an appellate court without either arguments or a record concerning the merits of the underlying dispute to decide that dispute”
- applying the one-year limitation period to bar a Headlee Amendment claim
- “The plaintiff has not provided us with any reason why this state constitutional right should be treated differently [than a federal constitutional right otherwise limited by a statute of hmitations].”
Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).
Judges: Dawson
Read full opinion on CourtListenerSourced 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.