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.
5 Kansas opinions name it 1 courts 1964–1986 0 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 |
|---|---|---|
| No positive-treatment citations attached to this issue in Kansas. | ||
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Kansas. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
State v. Dargatz
green
2 sentences1986Appellant’s argument centers on our holding in State v. Dargatz, 228 Kan. 322 , 614 P.2d 430 (1980). 1986Appellant’s argument centers on our holding in State v. Dargatz, 228 Kan. 322 , 614 P.2d 430 (1980). | 1 | 1986–1986 |
State v. Nesmith
green
2 sentences1977Ed. 2d 401 , 93 S. Ct. 375 (and followed by this court in State v. Nesmith, 220 Kan. 146 , 551 P. 2d 896 ; and State v. Mitchell, 220 Kan. 700 , 556 P. 2d 874 . 1977Ed. 2d 401 , 93 S. Ct. 375 (and followed by this court in State v. Nesmith, 220 Kan. 146 , 551 P. 2d 896 ; and State v. Mitchell, 220 Kan. 700 , 556 P. 2d 874 . | 1 | 1977–1977 |
State v. Mitchell
green
2 sentences1977Ed. 2d 401 , 93 S. Ct. 375 (and followed by this court in State v. Nesmith, 220 Kan. 146 , 551 P. 2d 896 ; and State v. Mitchell, 220 Kan. 700 , 556 P. 2d 874 . 1977Ed. 2d 401 , 93 S. Ct. 375 (and followed by this court in State v. Nesmith, 220 Kan. 146 , 551 P. 2d 896 ; and State v. Mitchell, 220 Kan. 700 , 556 P. 2d 874 . | 1 | 1977–1977 |
State v. Lassley
neutral
2 sentences1977(See State v. Gander, supra; State v. Lassley, 218 Kan. 752 , 545 P. 2d 379 ; and State v. Warbritton, supra at 509.) The appellant argues such a presumption of intent instruction violates K. 1977(See State v. Gander, supra; State v. Lassley, 218 Kan. 752 , 545 P. 2d 379 ; and State v. Warbritton, supra at 509.) The appellant argues such a presumption of intent instruction violates K. | 1 | 1977–1977 |
Neil v. Biggers
green
2 sentences1977On appeal the appellant argues this instruction only outlines the standards set forth by the United States Supreme Court in Neil v. Biggers, 409 U. S. 188 , 34 L. 1977On appeal the appellant argues this instruction only outlines the standards set forth by the United States Supreme Court in Neil v. Biggers, 409 U. S. 188 , 34 L. | 1 | 1977–1977 |
Eddie Huless Gilpin v. United States
green
1 sentence1970He argues the obvious conclusion taken from the warning would be that, “you’re not in court now but that if we ever get to court the court will appoint you a lawyer since you cannot afford one yourself.” He relies on Gilpin v. United States, 415 F. 2d 638 (5th Cir. 1969). | 1 | 1970–1970 |
Wagner v. Atchison, Topeka & Santa Fe Railway Co.
neutral
2 sentences1964(Citing, Wagner v. Railway Co., 73 Kan. 283 , 85 Pac. 299 ; and City of McPherson v. Stucker, 122 Kan. 595 , 256 Pac. 963 .) Two years after the decision in City of McPherson v. Stucker, supra, the court explained the above decisions (relied upon by the appellant) as being the rule under the old statute, but not under the new 1909 statute (now 60-3004, supra), in Jett-Wood Central Mercantile Co. v. Pringle, supra, where it was held in Syllabus ¶ 2: “An error in excluding evidence is not reviewable on appeal unless such excluded evidence has been produced and presented to the trial court by aff 1964(Citing, Wagner v. Railway Co., 73 Kan. 283 , 85 Pac. 299 ; and City of McPherson v. Stucker, 122 Kan. 595 , 256 Pac. 963 .) Two years after the decision in City of McPherson v. Stucker, supra, the court explained the above decisions (relied upon by the appellant) as being the rule under the old statute, but not under the new 1909 statute (now 60-3004, supra), in Jett-Wood Central Mercantile Co. v. Pringle, supra, where it was held in Syllabus ¶ 2: “An error in excluding evidence is not reviewable on appeal unless such excluded evidence has been produced and presented to the trial court by aff | 1 | 1964–1964 |
City of McPherson v. Stucker
green
2 sentences1964(Citing, Wagner v. Railway Co., 73 Kan. 283 , 85 Pac. 299 ; and City of McPherson v. Stucker, 122 Kan. 595 , 256 Pac. 963 .) Two years after the decision in City of McPherson v. Stucker, supra, the court explained the above decisions (relied upon by the appellant) as being the rule under the old statute, but not under the new 1909 statute (now 60-3004, supra), in Jett-Wood Central Mercantile Co. v. Pringle, supra, where it was held in Syllabus ¶ 2: “An error in excluding evidence is not reviewable on appeal unless such excluded evidence has been produced and presented to the trial court by aff 1964(Citing, Wagner v. Railway Co., 73 Kan. 283 , 85 Pac. 299 ; and City of McPherson v. Stucker, 122 Kan. 595 , 256 Pac. 963 .) Two years after the decision in City of McPherson v. Stucker, supra, the court explained the above decisions (relied upon by the appellant) as being the rule under the old statute, but not under the new 1909 statute (now 60-3004, supra), in Jett-Wood Central Mercantile Co. v. Pringle, supra, where it was held in Syllabus ¶ 2: “An error in excluding evidence is not reviewable on appeal unless such excluded evidence has been produced and presented to the trial court by aff | 1 | 1964–1964 |
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.