Legal Opinion · Dissent

Huet-Vaughn v. Kansas State Board of Healing Arts

Supreme Court of Kansas

Decided April 16, 1999No. 80,362Published

1DissentSix, J.

Huet-Vaughn has not acquiesced in the determination of her censure. The majority in Syl. ¶ 1 has stated the applicable law: ""When a judgment is rendered against a party and the judgment consists of separate and distinct parts, the acquiescence in and the payment of one of these separate parts by a party will not ordinarily cause a loss of the right to appeal the remaining separate parts of the judgment.”

The distinct and severable concept is well established in our case law on acquiescence in a judgment. See Varner v. Gulf Ins. Co., 254 Kan. 492, 497, 866 P.2d 1044 (1994). Censure, the issue…

2Cases cited8 opinions

  1. Brown v. Combined Insurance Co. of AmericaSupreme Court of Kansas · 1979
  2. State v. ConklingSupreme Court of Kansas · 1894
  3. Waters v. GarvinSupreme Court of Kansas · 1903
  4. Varner v. Gulf InsuranceSupreme Court of Kansas · 1994
  5. Crouse v. NixonSupreme Court of Kansas · 1902

3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API