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 1927–2012 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 |
|---|---|---|
State v. Perkinsgreen1 sentence2012See Perkins, 296 Kan. at 166 -67 (citing Brown, 295 Kan. at 196-97 ). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Browngreen1 sentence2012See Perkins, 296 Kan. at 166 -67 (citing Brown, 295 Kan. at 196-97 ). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Kansas. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
State v. Douglas
green
2 sentences1955(See State v. White, 14 Kan. 538, 539 ; State v. Child, 42 Kan. 611, 614 , 22 Pac. 721 .) This court has held in the case of State v. Douglas, 124 Kan. 482 , 260 Pac. 655 , that the use of “and” might be preferable in the charging clause but the use of “or” in the disjunctive is well within the rule if it follows the statute. 1955(See State v. White, 14 Kan. 538, 539 ; State v. Child, 42 Kan. 611, 614 , 22 Pac. 721 .) This court has held in the case of State v. Douglas, 124 Kan. 482 , 260 Pac. 655 , that the use of “and” might be preferable in the charging clause but the use of “or” in the disjunctive is well within the rule if it follows the statute. | 2 | 1935–1955 |
Carmichael v. State
green
2 sentences1994The issue is controlled by Carmichael v. State, 255 Kan. 10 , 872 P.2d 240 (1994). 1994The issue is controlled by Carmichael v. State, 255 Kan. 10 , 872 P.2d 240 (1994). | 1 | 1994–1994 |
State v. White
neutral
1 sentence1955(See State v. White, 14 Kan. 538, 539 ; State v. Child, 42 Kan. 611, 614 , 22 Pac. 721 .) This court has held in the case of State v. Douglas, 124 Kan. 482 , 260 Pac. 655 , that the use of “and” might be preferable in the charging clause but the use of “or” in the disjunctive is well within the rule if it follows the statute. | 1 | 1955–1955 |
State v. Child
neutral
1 sentence1955(See State v. White, 14 Kan. 538, 539 ; State v. Child, 42 Kan. 611, 614 , 22 Pac. 721 .) This court has held in the case of State v. Douglas, 124 Kan. 482 , 260 Pac. 655 , that the use of “and” might be preferable in the charging clause but the use of “or” in the disjunctive is well within the rule if it follows the statute. | 1 | 1955–1955 |
State v. Schweiter
green
1 sentence1935In the light of these circumstances the principle announced in the case of State v. Douglas, 124 Kan. 482 , 260 Pac. 655 , is applicable here, syllabus one of which reads: “The overruling of a motion to quash a count in an information because the disjunctive ‘or’ is used in the charging clause instead of the conjunctive ‘and,’ when it follows the language of the statute and refers to things as objects rather than the doing of things, and where it is used between synonymous words or terms rather than distinct alternatives, is not reversible error.” In the same ease this court quoted from 30 Cyc | 1 | 1935–1935 |
State v. Seeger
neutral
2 sentences1927It would not be within the rule if it were concerning the alleged doing of something by the defendant, as in the case of State v. Seeger, 65 Kan. 711 , 70 Pac. 599 , but here it concerns the objects — the ones whom the defendant treated. 1927It would not be within the rule if it were concerning the alleged doing of something by the defendant, as in the case of State v. Seeger, 65 Kan. 711 , 70 Pac. 599 , but here it concerns the objects — the ones whom the defendant treated. | 1 | 1927–1927 |
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.