State v. Paul (2008)
green
· 133 citation events
across 3 courts.
Showing the 23 strongest citers on record
(one row per citing case, strongest signal kept).
Treatment trajectory · 2008 → 2026 · click a year to view the case as of then
200820172026
Sort:
By significance ·
Most recent
green
State v. Coman (2009)
See State v. Paul, 285 Kan. 658, 662 , 175 P.3d 840 (2007) (reasonable doubts about meaning of a criminal statute are resolved in favor of the person accused).
reasonable doubts about meaning of a criminal statute are resolved in favor of the person accused
green
In Re ER (2008)
See State v. Paul, 285 Kan. 658, 662 , 175 P.3d 840 (2008).
green
In re E.R. (2008)
See State v. Paul, 285 Kan. 658, 662 , 175 P.3d 840 (2008).
green
State v. Kleypas (2016)
But, as the State points out, there is nothing in the record to substantiate Kleypas' claim that "the district court made no pretense of complying with the statute." The State cites authority for the proposition that Kleypas "has the burden to designate a record affirmatively showing error[,] and, without such a record, an appellate court presumes the 158 action of the district court was proper." State v. Valladarez, 288 Kan. 671, 686 , 206 P.3d 879 (2009); see State v. Paul…
appellant failed in duty to designate record sufficient to establish claimed error by failing to cite to any portion of record that would support claim; claim of alleged error fails without adequate record
green
State v. Keel (2015)
See State v. Paul, 285 Kan. 658, 667 , 175 P.3d 840 (2008).
green
State v. Hargrove (2013)
See State v. Paul, 285 Kan. 658, 670 , 175 P.3d 840 (2008) (A criminal defendant has the obligation to designate a record sufficient to support a claim of reviewable error on appeal.).
A criminal defendant has the obligation to designate a record sufficient to support a claim of reviewable error on appeal.
green
State v. Unrein (2012)
See State v. Paul, 285 Kan. 658, 670 , 175 P.3d 840 (2008).
green
State v. Kidd (2011)
See State v. Paul, 285 Kan. 658, 670 , 175 P.3d 840 (2008) (the appellant bears the burden to designate a record that supports his or her claim of error at the trial court; without such a record, the claim of alleged error fails).
the appellant bears the burden to designate a record that supports his or her claim of error at the trial court; without such a record, the claim of alleged error fails
green
State v. Aguirre (2011)
See State v. Paul, 285 Kan. 658, 670 , 175 P.3d 840 (2008).
green
State v. England (2010)
See State v. Paul, 285 Kan. 658, 670 , 175 P.3d 840 (2008) (The burden is on the appellant to furnish a record to support a claim of error at thé trial *41 court.
The burden is on the appellant to furnish a record to support a claim of error at thé trial *41 court. Without such a record, the claim of alleged error fails.
green
State v. Alexander (2010)
See State v. Paul, 285 Kan. 658, 670 , 175 P.3d 840 (2008).
green
State v. Raschke (2009)
See State v. Paul, 285 Kan. 658, 662, 175 P.3d 840 (2008).
green
State v. Trussell (2009)
See State v. Paul, 285 Kan. 658, 670 , 175 P.3d 840 (2008) (appellant’s duty to designate record on appeal).
appellant’s duty to designate record on appeal
green
City of Wichita v. Bannon (2009)
See State v. Paul, 285 Kan. 658, 662 , 175 P.3d 840 (2008).
green
State v. Valladarez (2009)
See State v. Paul, 285 Kan. 658, 670 , 175 P.3d 840 (2008); State v. Goodson, 281 Kan. 913, 919 , 135 P.3d 1116 (2006).
green
State v. BLAUROCK (2009)
See State v. Paul, 285 Kan. 658, 670 , 175 P.3d 840 (2008).
green
State v. Vaughn (2009)
See State v. Paul, 285 Kan. 658, 670 , 175 P.3d 840 (2008).
green
State v. Jones (2009)
See State v. Paul, 285 Kan. 658, 670 , 175 P.3d 840 (2008); State v. Mitchell, 284 Kan. 374, 377 , 162 P.3d 18 (2007).
green
State v. Unruh (2008)
interpreting K.S.A. 65-4161[c]
green
State v. Wilmore (2019)
See Paul, 285 Kan. at 661-62 .
green
Hoesli v. Triplett, Inc. (2015)
See State v. Paul, 285 Kan. 658, 661-62 , 175 P.2d 840 (2008) (court resorts to maxims of construction when statute is ambiguous, i.e., contains language of doubtful or conflicting meaning and leaves uncertainty as to which of multiple meanings is proper).
court resorts to maxims of construction when statute is ambiguous, i.e., contains language of doubtful or conflicting meaning and leaves uncertainty as to which of multiple meanings is proper
green
State v. Henning (2009)
See State v. Paul, 285 Kan. 658 .
See State v. Paul, 285 Kan. at 661-62.