In re Shriver, 294 P.3d 251 (Kan. 2013). · Go Syfert
Search
In re Shriver, 294 P.3d 251 (Kan. 2013). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
“t is well established that consent to search may be withdrawn in other contexts when warrantless fourth amendment searches are premised on that consent.”
25 citation events (25 in the last 25 years) across 3 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: Johnson v. Kansas Dept. of Revenue (kanctapp, 2020-07-17)
Treatment trajectory · 2013 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
2013 2019 2026
Top citers, strongest first. 5 distinct citers. How cited ↗
discussed Cited as authority (quoted) Johnson v. Kansas Dept. of Revenue
Kan. Ct. App. · 2020 · quote attribution · 1 verbatim quote · confidence low
t is well established that consent to search may be withdrawn in other contexts when warrantless fourth amendment searches are premised on that consent.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) State of Arizona v. Francisco L. Encinas Valenzuela (2×)
Ariz. Ct. App. · 2015 · confidence medium
See Cooper v. State, 277 Ga. 282 , 587 S.E.2d 605, 612 (2003) (consent invalid where driver not suspected of violating DUI law, rendering implied consent law inapplicable; choice of consenting to chemical test or losing license not legally authorized); Hannoy v. State, 789 N.E.2d 977, 988 (Ind.Ct.App.2003) (deputy never discussed implied consent law, stating instead, " '[I]t is my duty to check your blood for blood alcohol’ ”), aff'd on reh'g, 793 N.E.2d 1109 (Ind.Ct.App.2003); State v. Edgar, 296 Kan. 513 , 294 P.3d 251, 255, 262 (2013) (officer’s misstatement that driver "d[id] not hav…
cited Cited "see" Sander v. Kansas Dept. of Revenue
Kan. Ct. App. · 2020 · signal: see · confidence high
See State v. Edgar, 296 Kan. 513, 524 , 294 P.3d 251 (2013); Smith v. Kansas Dept. of Revenue, 291 Kan. 510, 515 , 242 P.3d 1179 (2010).
cited Cited "see" Pershad v. Kansas Dept. of Revenue
Kan. Ct. App. · 2020 · signal: see · confidence high
See State v. Edgar, 296 Kan. 513, 528 , 294 P.3d 251 (2013); Barnhart v. Kansas Dept. of Revenue, 243 Kan 209, 213, 755 P.2d 1337 (1988).
discussed Cited "see, e.g." State v. Stevenson
Kan. · 2014 · signal: see also · confidence low
“A review of the totality of the circumstances should, as the phrase implies, also include a consideration of the exculpatory factors.” Allen v. Kansas Dept. of Revenue, 292 Kan. 653, 660 , 256 P.3d 845 (2011) (Johnson, J., dissenting), disapproved of by Sloop v. Kansas Dept. of Revenue, 296 Kan. 13 , 290 P.3d 555 (2012); see also State v. Edgar, 296 Kan. 513, 525 , 294 P.3d 251 (2013) (court must look at whole picture, including favorable results on field sobriety tests).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
In the Matter of David G. Shriver
No. 107,697.
Supreme Court of Kansas.
Jan 18, 2013.
294 P.3d 251
Cited by 1 opinion  |  Published
1 passage pin-cited by 1 case
Pinpoint authority: bottom 60%
Citer courts: Court of Appeals of Kansas (1)

On June 22, 2012, this court suspended the respondent, David G. Shriver, from the practice of law in Kansas for a period of 6 months. See In re David G. Shriver, 294 Kan. 617, 278 P.3d 964 (2012). Before reinstatement, the respondent was required to pay die costs of the disciplinary action and comply with Supreme Court Rule 218 (2012 Kan. Ct. R. Annot. 397) and Supreme Court Rule 219 (2012 Kan. Ct. R. Annot. 398).

On January 8, 2013, David G. Shriver filed a petition with this court for reinstatement to the practice of law in Kansas. The petition was referred to the Disciplinary Administrator for consideration by the Kansas Board for Discipline of Attorneys, pursuant to Supreme Court Rule 219. The Disciplinary Administrator affirmed that the respondent met all requirements set forth by the court.

The court, after carefully considering the record, grants the respondent’s petition for reinstatement.

It Is Therefore Ordered that the respondent be reinstated to the practice of law in the state of Kansas conditioned upon his compliance with the annual continuing legal education requirements and upon his payment of all fees required by the Clerk of the Appellate Courts and the Kansas Continuing Legal Education Commission. When the respondent has complied with the annual continuing legal education requirements and has paid the fees required by the Clerk of the Appellate Courts and the Kansas Continuing Legal Education Commission, the Clerk is directed to enter respondent’s name upon the roster of attorneys engaged in the practice of law in Kansas.

It Is Further Ordered that this order of reinstatement of David G. Shriver shall be published in the Kansas Reports, and the costs of the reinstatement proceedings are assessed to the respondent.