State v. Morton (2007)
green
· 105 citation events
across 5 courts.
Showing the 16 strongest citers on record
(one row per citing case, strongest signal kept).
Treatment trajectory · 2007 → 2026 · click a year to view the case as of then
200720162026
Sort:
By significance ·
Most recent
yellow
Sierra Club v. Mosier (2017)
See Superior Boiler Works, Inc. v. Kimball, 292 Kan. 885, 889 , 259 P.3d 676 (2011) (an issue not briefed is abandoned); but see State v. Morton, 283 Kan. 464, 472-73 , 153 P.3d 532 (2007) (in remand proceedings, law of the case doctrine did not bar reconsideration and reversal of the motion in limine at the new trial because issue was not addressed in first appeal).
in remand proceedings, law of the case doctrine did not bar reconsideration and reversal of the motion in limine at the new trial because issue was not addressed in first appeal
yellow
Sierra Club v. Mosier (2017)
See Superior Boiler Works, Inc. v. Kimball, 292 Kan. 885, 889 , 259 P.3d 676 (2011) (an issue not briefed is abandoned); but see State v. Morton, 283 Kan. 464, 472-73 , 153 P.3d 532 (2007) (in remand proceedings, law of the case doctrine did not bar reconsideration and reversal of the motion in limine at the new trial because issue was not addressed in first appeal).
in remand proceedings, law of the case doctrine did not bar reconsideration and reversal of the motion in limine at the new trial because issue was not addressed in first appeal
green
State v. Edwards (2016)
See State v. Morton, 283 Kan. 464, 472 , 153 P.3d 532 (2007) ("Under the rule, it is clear that, when a second trial or appeal is pursued in a case, the first decision is the settled law of the case on all questions addressed in a first appeal.
"Under the rule, it is clear that, when a second trial or appeal is pursued in a case, the first decision is the settled law of the case on all questions addressed in a first appeal. Reconsideration will not be given to such questions."
green
THOMAS (LACY) VS. DIST. CT. (STATE) (2017)
Most . . . have followed the federal [Oregon v. Kennedy] standard." See Tomlin v. State, 695 So. 2d 157, 165 (Ala. 1996); Green, 380 S.W. at 374-75; State v. Michael J., 875 A.2d 510, 534-35 (Conn. 2005); Dinning v. State, 485 S.E.2d 464, 465-66 (Ga. 1997); State v. Morton, 153 P.3d 532,537-38 (Kan. 2007); State v. Chase, 754 A.2d 961, 963-64 (Me. 2000); State v. DeMarco, 511 A.2d 1251, 1253-54 (N.J.
green
THOMAS (LACY) VS. DIST. CT. (STATE) (2017)
Most . . . have followed the federal [Oregon v. Kennedy] standard." See Tomlin v. State, 695 So. 2d 157, 165 (Ala. 1996); Green, 380 S.W. at 374-75; State v. Michael J., 875 A.2d 510, 534-35 (Conn. 2005); Dinning v. State, 485 S.E.2d 464, 465-66 (Ga. 1997); State v. Morton, 153 P.3d 532,537-38 (Kan. 2007); State v. Chase, 754 A.2d 961, 963-64 (Me. 2000); State v. DeMarco, 511 A.2d 1251, 1253-54 (N.J.
green
THOMAS (LACY) VS. DIST. CT. (STATE) (2017)
Most . . . have followed the federal [Oregon v. Kennedy] standard." See Tomlin v. State, 695 So. 2d 157, 165 (Ala. 1996); Green, 380 S.W. at 374-75; State v. Michael J., 875 A.2d 510, 534-35 (Conn. 2005); Dinning v. State, 485 S.E.2d 464, 465-66 (Ga. 1997); State v. Morton, 153 P.3d 532,537-38 (Kan. 2007); State v. Chase, 754 A.2d 961, 963-64 (Me. 2000); State v. DeMarco, 511 A.2d 1251, 1253-54 (N.J.
green
In re Petition for Habeas Corpus by Bowman (2019)
See State v. Morton , 283 Kan. 464 , 467, 153 P.3d 532 (2007) ; see also State v. Miller , 293 Kan. 535 , 544, 264 P.3d 461 (2011).
green
Martinez v. MILBURN ENTERPRISES, INC. (2010)
See State v. Morton, 283 Kan. 464, 473 , 153 P.3d 532 (2007).
green
Rodina v. Castaneda (2025)
See State v. Morton, 283 Kan. 464, 471-74 , 153 P.3d 532 (2007) (district court presiding over retrial pursuant to appellate mandate permitted to reconsider motion in limine ruling never contested in appeal).
district court presiding over retrial pursuant to appellate mandate permitted to reconsider motion in limine ruling never contested in appeal
green
Harris v. City Cycle Sales, Inc. (2022)
App. 2d 778 , 73 P.3d 772, 780-81 (2003); see also State v. Morton, 283 Kan. 464 , 153 P.3d 532, 539 (2007) (“[W]hen a second trial . . . is pursued in a case, the first decision is the settled law of the case on all questions addressed in a first appeal.”) (emphasis added) (citation omitted)). 30 Wheeler v. John Deere Co., 935 F.2d 1090, 1096 (10th Cir. 1991) (citing Gospel Army v. Los Angeles, 331 U.S. 543, 546 (1947)).
green
State v. Thompson (2021)
See State v. Morton, 283 Kan. 464, 471-74 , 153 P.3d 532 (2007) (district court presiding over retrial pursuant to appellate mandate permitted to reconsider motion in limine ruling never contested in appeal).
district court presiding over retrial pursuant to appellate mandate permitted to reconsider motion in limine ruling never contested in appeal
green
State v. Smith (2021)
See, e.g., State v. Morton, 283 Kan. 464, 471-73 , 153 P.3d 532 (2007).
green
State v. Soto (2019)
See State v. Morton, 283 Kan. 464, 471-74 , 153 P.3d 532 (2007) (district court presiding over retrial pursuant to appellate mandate permitted to reconsider 18 motion in limine ruling never contested in appeal).
district court presiding over retrial pursuant to appellate mandate permitted to reconsider 18 motion in limine ruling never contested in appeal
green
State v. Jones (2013)
State v. Scott, 271 Kan. at 108 ; see also State v. Jones, 279 Kan. 395, 404 , 109 P.3d 1158 (2005).’ State v. Morton, 283 Kan. 464, 474-75 , 153 P.3d 532 (2007).” Haberlein, 296 Kan. at 205 .
green
State v. Haberlein (2012)
State v. Scott, 271 Kan. at 108 ; see also State v. Jones, 279 Kan. 395, 404 , 109 P.3d 1158 (2005).” State v. Morton, 283 Kan. 464, 474-75 , 153 P.3d 532 (2007).
green
State v. Miller (2011)
See Morton, 283 Kan. at 469-71 ; State v. Williams, 268 Kan. 1, 7 , 988 P.2d 722 (1999); Muck, 262 Kan. at 467, 469-70 ; State v. Cady, 254 Kan. 393, 399-400 , 867 P.2d 270 (1994); cf. State v. McClanahan, 259 Kan. 86, 102 , 910 P.2d 193 (1996) (citing Kennedy for the proposition that “[i]n evaluating the misconduct . . . , the question remains whether the prosecutor’s intentional attempt to introduce inadmissible evidence substantially prejudiced the defendant’s right to a …