Hopkins v. Parker

Supreme Court of Kansas

Hopkins v. Parker

115 P. 400, 84 Kan. 891, 1911 Kan. LEXIS 443

CourtSupreme Court of Kansas

DecidedMay 6, 1911

DocketNo. 15,787

StatusPublished

This text of 115 P. 400 (Hopkins v. Parker) 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

Hopkins v. Parker, 115 P. 400, 84 Kan. 891, 1911 Kan. LEXIS 443 (kan 1911).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam:

The abstract is insufficient because for the most part conclusions are stated instead of the substance of the evidence. (Brady v. Mining Co., 83 Kan. 808.)

Taking the abstract and counter abstract together and interpreting the evidence in the light most favorable to the plaintiff the court is of the opinion that only one reasonable conclusion can be drawn,, and that is that the relations of the parties remained unchanged after the plaintiff became of age. There is no dispute about the law governing such cases.

The judgment is affirmed.

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

Per Curiam:

The abstract is insufficient because for the most part conclusions are stated instead of the substance of the evidence. (Brady v. Mining Co., 83 Kan. 808.)

Taking the abstract and counter abstract together and interpreting the evidence in the light most favorable to the plaintiff the court is of the opinion that only one reasonable conclusion can be drawn,, and that is that the relations of the parties remained unchanged after the plaintiff became of age. There is no dispute about the law governing such cases.

The judgment is affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

115 P. 400, 84 Kan. 891, 1911 Kan. LEXIS 443, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hopkins-v-parker-kan-1911.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack