Citing references
Opinions citing Huffmier v. Hamilton, 57 P.3d 819 (Kan. Ct. App. 2002)
14 citing cases
-
127 P.3d 342 Court of Appeals of KansasAugust 12, 2005
See Huffmier v. Hamilton, 30 Kan. App. 2d 1163, 1165 , 57 P.3d 819 (2002), rev. denied 275 Kan. 964 (2003).
-
494 P.3d 178 Court of Appeals of KansasJuly 16, 2021
See Huffmier v. Hamilton, 30 Kan. App. 2d 1163, 1166 , 57 P.3d 819 (2002) (holding that "[i]t is error for a trial court to raise, sua sponte, nonjurisdictional issues").
-
240 P.3d 592 Court of Appeals of KansasSeptember 24, 2010
App. 2d 1163, 1167 , 57 P.3d 819 (2002), rev. denied 275 Kan. 964 (2003). In Huffmier , the panel ruled that if the district court addresses an issue, an appellate court can review the issue even though the parties did not raise the matter.
-
371 P.3d 905 Supreme Court of KansasApril 22, 2016
See Huffmier v. Hamilton, 30 Kan. App. 2d 1163, 1167 , 57 P.3d 819 (2002), rev. denied 275 Kan. 964 (2003) (when trial court chooses *353 to address issue not raised by the parties, appellate court may address issue as well).
-
211 P.3d 847 Court of Appeals of KansasJuly 17, 2009
See Huffmier v. Hamilton, 30 Kan. App. 2d 1163, 1167 , 57 P.3d 819 (2002) (if the trial court addresses an issue, appellate courts can address the issue even though the appellant did not raise the issue below or in briefs). II.
-
265 P.3d 577 Court of Appeals of KansasNovember 18, 2011
Huffmier v. Hamilton, 30 Kan. App. 2d 1163, 1170 , 57 P.3d 819 (2002), rev. denied 275 Kan. 964 (2003). Some federal cases deal with this subject.
-
Court of Appeals of KansasJuly 16, 2021 Unpublished
See Huffmier v. Hamilton, 30 Kan. App. 2d 1163, 1166 , 57 P.3d 819 (2002) (holding that "[i]t is error for a trial court to raise, sua sponte, nonjurisdictional issues").
-
Court of Appeals of KansasJanuary 23, 2026
Chief Engineer of Div. of Water Resources, 237 Kan. 857, 864 , 704 P.2d 12 [1985], and Huffmier v. Hamilton, 30 Kan. App. 2d 1163, 1166 , 57 P.3d 819 [2002]).
-
Court of Appeals of KansasJuly 1, 2016 Unpublished
Phillips, 299 Kan. 479, 493 , 325 P.3d 1095 (2014); Huffmier v. Hamilton, 30 Kan. App. 2d 1163, 1171 , 57 P.3d 819 (2002) ("We may affirm the trial court on grounds different than those stated by the trial court.").
-
Court of Appeals of KansasMarch 17, 2017 Unpublished
Huffmier v. Hamilton, 30 Kan. App. 2d 1163, 1166-67 , 57 P.3d 819 (2002). While this might have been grounds for a remand, neither party raised the issue on appeal. See Carson v. Kansas Dept. of Revenue, No. 100,280, 2009 WL 2144042 (Kan.
-
Court of Appeals of KansasMarch 10, 2017 Unpublished
Huffmier v. Hamilton, 30 Kan. App. 2d 1163, 1165 , 57 P.3d 819 (2002) (citing Scott v. Hern, 216 F.3d 897, 908 [10th Cir. 2000]). Discussion A.
-
Court of Appeals of KansasDecember 15, 2017 Unpublished
Chief Engineer of Div. of Water Resources, 237 Kan. 857, 864 , 704 P.2d 12 (1985); Huffmier v. Hamilton, 30 Kan. App. 2d 1163, 1166 , 57 P.3d 819 (2002). Under this rule, the district court clearly erred.
-
Court of Appeals of KansasApril 13, 2018 Unpublished
Huffmier v. Hamilton, 30 Kan. App. 2d 1163, 1166 , 57 P.3d 819 (2002) (citing Frontier Ditch Co. v. Chief Engineer of Div. of Water Resources, 237 Kan. 857, 864 , 704 P.2d 12 [1985]).
-
Court of Appeals of KansasDecember 20, 2019 Unpublished
Huffmier v. Hamilton, 30 Kan. App. 2d 1163, 1166 , 57 P.3d 819 (2002). An exception to the exclusionary rule is not a jurisdictional issue.