Huet-Vaughn v. Kansas State Board of Healing Arts
Supreme Court of Kansas
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
- Brown v. Combined Insurance Co. of AmericaSupreme Court of Kansas · 1979
- State v. ConklingSupreme Court of Kansas · 1894
- Waters v. GarvinSupreme Court of Kansas · 1903
- Varner v. Gulf InsuranceSupreme Court of Kansas · 1994
- Crouse v. NixonSupreme Court of Kansas · 1902
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.