Legal Opinion · Concurring in part, dissenting in part

Hogan v. Santa Fe Trail Transportation Co.

Supreme Court of Kansas

Decided December 10, 1938No. 33,968Published

1Concurring in part, dissenting in partWedell, J.

I dissent from the statement of law contained in the first paragraph of the syllabus and from the corresponding portion of the opinion. In my opinion any injury which deprives a human being of an existing privilege or of a definite existing enjoyment of life, robs the individual of a right, the loss of which is compensable.

It should be noted on the outset the enjoyment in the instant case was not an imaginary enjoyment. It was a fixed and definite enjoyment which existed at the time of the injury. Nor did it constitute an incidental or merely occasional enjoyment. It was an enjoyment which…

2Cases cited13 opinions

  1. City of Columbus v. StrassnerIndiana Supreme Court · 1890
  2. Gibbard v. EvansWest Virginia Supreme Court · 1921
  3. Nees v. Julian Goldman Stores, Inc.West Virginia Supreme Court · 1930
  4. Kramer v. Chicago, Milwaukee, St. Paul & Pacific RailroadWisconsin Supreme Court · 1937
  5. Budek v. City of ChicagoAppellate Court of Illinois · 1935

8 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