Elliott v. Dillon Companies

Supreme Court of Kansas

Elliott v. Dillon Companies

918 P.2d 1305, 260 Kan. 411, 1996 Kan. LEXIS 107

CourtSupreme Court of Kansas

DecidedJuly 12, 1996

Docket73,478

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 918 P.2d 1305 (Elliott v. Dillon Companies) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Kansas primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Elliott v. Dillon Companies, 918 P.2d 1305, 260 Kan. 411, 1996 Kan. LEXIS 107 (kan 1996).

Pincite

Opinion

The opinion of the court was delivered by

ALLEGRUCCI, J.:

This is an interlocutory appeal by defendants from the district court’s denial of their motions to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction and for failure to state a claim upon which relief could be granted. The single issue in this case is whether a workers compensation claimant may bring a cause of action under K.S.A. 44-5,121. The district court certified that an immediate appeal would materially advance the litigation, pursuant to K.S.A. 60-2102(b). The Court of Appeals affirmed the district court’s denial of the motions. Elliott v. Dillon Companies, 21 Kan. App. 2d 908, 908 P.2d 1345 (1996). Appellants’ petition for review was granted by this court on March 14, 1996.

We have reviewed the briefs, the arguments, and the record in this case, and we conclude the Court of Appeals was correct. We *412 adopt the opinion of the Court of Appeals and affirm both the Court of Appeals and the district court.

Abbott, J., not participating. Robert H. Miller, C.J. Retired, assigned.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

The opinion of the court was delivered by

ALLEGRUCCI, J.:

This is an interlocutory appeal by defendants from the district court’s denial of their motions to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction and for failure to state a claim upon which relief could be granted. The single issue in this case is whether a workers compensation claimant may bring a cause of action under K.S.A. 44-5,121. The district court certified that an immediate appeal would materially advance the litigation, pursuant to K.S.A. 60-2102(b). The Court of Appeals affirmed the district court’s denial of the motions. Elliott v. Dillon Companies, 21 Kan. App. 2d 908, 908 P.2d 1345 (1996). Appellants’ petition for review was granted by this court on March 14, 1996.

We have reviewed the briefs, the arguments, and the record in this case, and we conclude the Court of Appeals was correct. We *412 adopt the opinion of the Court of Appeals and affirm both the Court of Appeals and the district court.

Abbott, J., not participating. Robert H. Miller, C.J. Retired, assigned.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

918 P.2d 1305, 260 Kan. 411, 1996 Kan. LEXIS 107, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/elliott-v-dillon-companies-kan-1996.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack