Already have an account? Sign in instead.
You stay signed in for 30 days on this browser.
Continue with Google Continue with MicrosoftNo account yet? Create a free one.
We sent a six-digit code.
It expires in ten minutes, works once, and only in this browser. Five wrong tries void it. Send another code.
Your account is live and the Cloudflare checks are off for this browser.
6 Kansas opinions name it 2 courts 1994–2026 3 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Kansas courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
Albright v. Stategreen2 sentences2026The movant need not show that a different result would have been achieved but for appointed counsel's performance." Albright, 292 Kan. at 211-12 . 2026The movant need not show that a different result would have been achieved but for appointed counsel's performance." Albright, 292 Kan. at 211-12 . | 1 | 2 |
People v. Rubalcavagreen2 sentences2026See Albright v. State, 292 Kan. 193 , 251 1 P.3d 52 (2011). 2026See Albright v. State, 292 Kan. 193 , 251 1 P.3d 52 (2011). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Albrightgreen2 sentences2022Thus, we affirmed the district court's denial of Albright's motion. 307 Kan. at 368-69. 2022Albright, 307 Kan. at 368 (citing Kirtdoll v. State, 306 Kan. 335 , 341, 393 P.3d 1053 [2017]). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Colemangreen1 sentence2022Albright now appeals the district court's decision to our court. 5 ANALYSIS Where a defendant seeks sentence modification in postconviction proceedings, a court lacks jurisdiction and should dismiss the matter unless there is a statute that "authoriz[es] the specific requested relief." 312 Kan. at 120-21. | 1 | 1 |
State v. Reddinggreen2 sentences2022See State v. Redding, 310 Kan. 15 , 18, 444 P.3d 989 (2019) (courts should liberally construe pro se postconviction motions to "consider the relief requested, rather than a formulaic adherence to pleading requirements"). 2022See State v. Redding, 310 Kan. 15 , 18, 444 P.3d 989 (2019) (courts should liberally construe pro se postconviction motions to "consider the relief requested, rather than a formulaic adherence to pleading requirements"). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Kansas. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Kirtdoll v. State
green
2 sentences2022Albright, 307 Kan. at 368 (citing Kirtdoll v. State, 306 Kan. 335 , 341, 393 P.3d 1053 [2017]). 2022Albright, 307 Kan. at 368 (citing Kirtdoll v. State, 306 Kan. 335 , 341, 393 P.3d 1053 [2017]). | 3 | 2018–2022 |
Verge v. State
green
2 sentences2018The district court then 3 concluded that Albright was not entitled to relief because in Verge v. State, 50 Kan. 2018The district court then 3 concluded that Albright was not entitled to relief because in Verge v. State, 50 Kan. | 2 | 2018–2018 |
Albright v. Oliver
green
1 sentence1994Chief Justice Rehnquist, joined by Justices O’Connor, Scalia, and Ginsburg, held that Albright’s claim should have been raised under the Fourth Amendment and that “it is evident that substantive due process may not furnish the constitutional peg on which to hang such a ‘tort.’ ” 127 L. | 1 | 1994–1994 |
Parratt v. Taylor
red
2 sentences1994Ed. 2d at 122 n. 4. *627 Justice Kennedy, joined by Justice Thomas, concurred in affirming the Court of Appeals but based his reasoning on the conclusion the Due Process Clause of the United States Constitution does not include a standard to judge the initiation of a criminal prosecution and that because there was an adequate state remedy — the tort of malicious prosecution — Albright’s § 1983 claim was barred under the doctrine of Parratt v. Taylor, 451 U.S. 527, 535-44 , 68 L. 1994Ed. 2d at 122 n. 4. *627 Justice Kennedy, joined by Justice Thomas, concurred in affirming the Court of Appeals but based his reasoning on the conclusion the Due Process Clause of the United States Constitution does not include a standard to judge the initiation of a criminal prosecution and that because there was an adequate state remedy — the tort of malicious prosecution — Albright’s § 1983 claim was barred under the doctrine of Parratt v. Taylor, 451 U.S. 527, 535-44 , 68 L. | 1 | 1994–1994 |
Counted by distinct opinions that both name this issue and are annotated to the section; sections every opinion cites regardless of issue are not filtered here, so read the counts against the total above.
Opinions by the citing court's state. A doctrine retained in one state and abandoned in another shows up here as a year span that stalls.