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 2 courts 2011–2023 1 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 |
|---|---|---|
State v. Bunyardgreen2 sentences2023Rape Jury Instruction Ford argues the district court should have given a "modified Bunyard instruction." See State v. Bunyard, 281 Kan. 392, 408-16 , 133 P.3d 14 (2006), disapproved of by State v. Flynn, 299 Kan. 1052 , 329 P.3d 429 (2014). 2023Rape Jury Instruction Ford argues the district court should have given a "modified Bunyard instruction." See State v. Bunyard, 281 Kan. 392, 408-16 , 133 P.3d 14 (2006), disapproved of by State v. Flynn, 299 Kan. 1052 , 329 P.3d 429 (2014). | 1 | 2 |
State v. Flynngreen2 sentences2023Rape Jury Instruction Ford argues the district court should have given a "modified Bunyard instruction." See State v. Bunyard, 281 Kan. 392, 408-16 , 133 P.3d 14 (2006), disapproved of by State v. Flynn, 299 Kan. 1052 , 329 P.3d 429 (2014). 2023Rape Jury Instruction Ford argues the district court should have given a "modified Bunyard instruction." See State v. Bunyard, 281 Kan. 392, 408-16 , 133 P.3d 14 (2006), disapproved of by State v. Flynn, 299 Kan. 1052 , 329 P.3d 429 (2014). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Robinsongreen2 sentences2011See State v. Robinson, No. 99,443, 2009 WL 1140256 (Kan. 2011See State v. Robinson, No. 99,443, 2009 WL 1140256 (Kan.App.2009), rev. denied 290 Kan. 1102 (2010) (unpublished opinion) (finding that the facts did not support the giving of such an instruction). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Kansas. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Hale v. Brown
green
2 sentences2020Bunyard's claim is for negligence, and a plaintiff must establish four elements for a valid negligence claim: (1) the existence of a duty; (2) breach of that duty; (3) an injury; and (4) a sufficient causal connection between the duty breached and the injury—what lawyers call "proximate causation." Hale v. Brown, 287 Kan. 320, 322 , 197 P.3d 438 (2008). 2020Bunyard's claim is for negligence, and a plaintiff must establish four elements for a valid negligence claim: (1) the existence of a duty; (2) breach of that duty; (3) an injury; and (4) a sufficient causal connection between the duty breached and the injury—what lawyers call "proximate causation." Hale v. Brown, 287 Kan. 320, 322 , 197 P.3d 438 (2008). | 1 | 2020–2020 |
State v. Seward
green
2 sentences2014And while jurors may choose to believe parts of a given witness’ account of relevant events and disbelieve other parts, see Ater v. Culbertson, 190 Kan. 68, 73-74 , 372 P.2d 580 (1962) (In assessing the credibility of a witness, jurors may accept part of his or her testimony and reject the balance as “they feel warranted in so doing.”); State v. Seward, 163 Kan. 136, 145 , 181 P.2d 478 (1947) (A jury has the prerogative to believe in part and disbelieve in part a witness’ testimony or confession.), aff'd on reh. 164 Kan. 608 , 191 P.2d 743 (1948), nothing suggests they did so here to come up w 2014And while jurors may choose to believe parts of a given witness’ account of relevant events and disbelieve other parts, see Ater v. Culbertson, 190 Kan. 68, 73-74 , 372 P.2d 580 (1962) (In assessing the credibility of a witness, jurors may accept part of his or her testimony and reject the balance as “they feel warranted in so doing.”); State v. Seward, 163 Kan. 136, 145 , 181 P.2d 478 (1947) (A jury has the prerogative to believe in part and disbelieve in part a witness’ testimony or confession.), aff'd on reh. 164 Kan. 608 , 191 P.2d 743 (1948), nothing suggests they did so here to come up w | 1 | 2014–2014 |
State v. Seward
neutral
2 sentences2014And while jurors may choose to believe parts of a given witness’ account of relevant events and disbelieve other parts, see Ater v. Culbertson, 190 Kan. 68, 73-74 , 372 P.2d 580 (1962) (In assessing the credibility of a witness, jurors may accept part of his or her testimony and reject the balance as “they feel warranted in so doing.”); State v. Seward, 163 Kan. 136, 145 , 181 P.2d 478 (1947) (A jury has the prerogative to believe in part and disbelieve in part a witness’ testimony or confession.), aff'd on reh. 164 Kan. 608 , 191 P.2d 743 (1948), nothing suggests they did so here to come up w 2014And while jurors may choose to believe parts of a given witness’ account of relevant events and disbelieve other parts, see Ater v. Culbertson, 190 Kan. 68, 73-74 , 372 P.2d 580 (1962) (In assessing the credibility of a witness, jurors may accept part of his or her testimony and reject the balance as “they feel warranted in so doing.”); State v. Seward, 163 Kan. 136, 145 , 181 P.2d 478 (1947) (A jury has the prerogative to believe in part and disbelieve in part a witness’ testimony or confession.), aff'd on reh. 164 Kan. 608 , 191 P.2d 743 (1948), nothing suggests they did so here to come up w | 1 | 2014–2014 |
State v. Williams
green
2 sentences2014Even if a Bunyard instruction might have been appropriate under a peculiar stretch of the evidence, we cannot say that its omission was clearly erroneous as outlined in Williams, 295 Kan. 506 , Syl. ¶ 5. 2014Even if a Bunyard instruction might have been appropriate under a peculiar stretch of the evidence, we cannot say that its omission was clearly erroneous as outlined in Williams, 295 Kan. 506 , Syl. ¶ 5. | 1 | 2014–2014 |
Ater v. Culbertson
neutral
2 sentences2014And while jurors may choose to believe parts of a given witness’ account of relevant events and disbelieve other parts, see Ater v. Culbertson, 190 Kan. 68, 73-74 , 372 P.2d 580 (1962) (In assessing the credibility of a witness, jurors may accept part of his or her testimony and reject the balance as “they feel warranted in so doing.”); State v. Seward, 163 Kan. 136, 145 , 181 P.2d 478 (1947) (A jury has the prerogative to believe in part and disbelieve in part a witness’ testimony or confession.), aff'd on reh. 164 Kan. 608 , 191 P.2d 743 (1948), nothing suggests they did so here to come up w 2014And while jurors may choose to believe parts of a given witness’ account of relevant events and disbelieve other parts, see Ater v. Culbertson, 190 Kan. 68, 73-74 , 372 P.2d 580 (1962) (In assessing the credibility of a witness, jurors may accept part of his or her testimony and reject the balance as “they feel warranted in so doing.”); State v. Seward, 163 Kan. 136, 145 , 181 P.2d 478 (1947) (A jury has the prerogative to believe in part and disbelieve in part a witness’ testimony or confession.), aff'd on reh. 164 Kan. 608 , 191 P.2d 743 (1948), nothing suggests they did so here to come up w | 1 | 2014–2014 |
State v. Bunyard
green
1 sentence2014In support, the State cites Judge Johnson’s (now Justice Johnson) dissenting opinion in State v. Bunyard, 31 Kan. | 1 | 2014–2014 |
State v. Flynn
green
1 sentence2014App. 2d 1113, 1115-16 , 257 P.3d 1259 (2011) (noting requirement for Bunyard instruction and reversing conviction for failure to give one on the facts of that case), rev. granted January 20, 2012. | 1 | 2014–2014 |
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.