Kansas City, Fort Scott & Gulf Railroad v. Kier
Supreme Court of Kansas
Motion for Rehearing. The facts are stated in K. C. Ft. 8. & G. Rid. Co. v. Kier, supra, and in the opinion herein, filed on June 7, 1889.
1Per curiam
In a very forcible and able argument counsel for the railroad company contend that another trial should be awarded, and to that end there should be a rehearing, instead of an affirmance, as directed in the opinion heretofore filed. One or two questions are submitted which were not presented upon the original hearing, and these, therefore, will not be considered. (The State v. Coulter, 40 Kas. 673; 20 Pac. Rep. 525.) All the other questions are sufficiently disposed of in the original opinion, excepting the one concerning the instructions as to gross negligence and exemplary damages. We stated…
2Cases cited8 opinions
- Kansas Pacific Railway Co. v. PeaveySupreme Court of Kansas · 1883
- Kennedy v. North Missouri RailroadSupreme Court of Missouri · 1865
- Leavenworth, Lawrence & Galveston Railroad v. RiceSupreme Court of Kansas · 1872
- Philad. Traction Co. v. OrbannSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1888
- Thomas v. DansbyMichigan Supreme Court · 1889
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by9 opinions
- Stout v. GallemoreSupreme Court of Kansas · 1933
- Jacobs v. Atchison, Topeka & Santa Fe Railway Co.Supreme Court of Kansas · 1916
- Atchison, Topeka & Santa Fé Railroad v. McGinnisSupreme Court of Kansas · 1891
- Ewing v. EdwardsSupreme Court of Kansas · 1934
- Boeck v. Katz Drug Co.Supreme Court of Kansas · 1942
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.