Legal Opinion · Concurring in part, dissenting in part

Starke v. Starke

Supreme Court of Kansas

Decided May 9, 1942No. 35,329Published

1Concurring in part, dissenting in partHoch, J.

(concurring in result; dissenting from certain conclusions stated in the opinion): I concur in the finding that the district court was without jurisdiction of the subject matter and in that part of the opinion pertinent thereto. But in view of the whole situation disclosed by the record and as presented by this appeal, I think the court should also have treated the constitutional question raised by the motion to vacate the judgment.

While the general policy of deciding only what is strictly necessary to determine the result of a case is a wise one, there have been many cases where the court…

2Cases cited22 opinions

  1. Weaver v. First National BankSupreme Court of Kansas · 1907
  2. Ott v. SpragueSupreme Court of Kansas · 1882
  3. Palmer Oil & Gas Co. v. ParishSupreme Court of Kansas · 1900
  4. Pilcher v. Atchison, Topeka & Santa Fé RailroadSupreme Court of Kansas · 1888
  5. Coughlin v. CoughlinSupreme Court of Kansas · 1881

17 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