Legal Opinion

Heiman v. Parrish

Supreme Court of Kansas

Decided July 24, 1997No. 77,150PublishedCited by 31 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

The opinion of the court was delivered by

McFarland, C.J.:

The issue before us concerns the ownership of an engagement ring after the engagement was terminated.

The case was called for jury trial. After a brief in-chambers conference (no record of which is before us), the court orally decided the issue in open court. What transpired is concisely journalized as follows:

“The parties stipulate to the following facts:
“1. The issue to be determined is the ownership of an engagement ring.
“2. The plaintiff purchased the engagement ring.
“3. The ring was given to defendant as an engagement ring in…

2Cases cited22 opinions

  1. Gillespie v. SeymourSupreme Court of Kansas · 1991
  2. Pavlicic v. VogtsbergerSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1957
  3. Brown v. ThomasCourt of Appeals of Wisconsin · 1985
  4. Gill v. ShivelyDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida · 1975
  5. Kneller v. Federal Land Bank of WichitaSupreme Court of Kansas · 1990

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

3Cited by31 opinions

  1. Lampe v. Williamson (In Re Lampe)Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · 2003
  2. Albinger v. HarrisMontana Supreme Court · 2002
  3. State v. BrownSupreme Court of Kansas · 2001
  4. McTaggart v. Liberty Mutual InsuranceSupreme Court of Kansas · 1999
  5. Lindh v. SurmanSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1999

26 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