Legal Opinion · Concurrence

Kuhn v. Schmidt

Court of Appeals of Kansas

Decided March 30, 2012No. 106,257Published

1ConcurrenceAtcheson, J.

I concur in the decision affirming the judgment against Plaintiff Marie Kuhn on statute of limitations grounds, but I do so reluctantly. The judgment reflects the triumph of a true technicality that thwarted resolution of the legal dispute between Kuhn and Defendant Harold Schmidt on its merits. The result is all the more vexing because it rests on judicial gloss the appellate courts have placed on a statute enacted to prevent exactly what has happened in this case. This court manufactured the gloss in Grimmett v. Burke, 21 Kan. App. 2d 638, 647-48, 906 P.2d 156 (1995), rev. denied 259 Kan.…

2Cases cited16 opinions

  1. Unruh v. PURINA MILLS, LLCSupreme Court of Kansas · 2009
  2. Casco v. Armour Swift-EckrichSupreme Court of Kansas · 2007
  3. Pieren-Abbott v. Kansas Department of RevenueSupreme Court of Kansas · 2005
  4. Haley v. HershbergerSupreme Court of Kansas · 1971
  5. Robinson v. City of Wichita Employees' Retirement Board of TrusteesSupreme Court of Kansas · 2010

11 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