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 1972–2026 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. Greengreen2 sentences2001See State v. Green, 254 Kan. 669, 676 , 867 P.2d 366 (1994) (explaining that K.S.A. 60-425 is merely the codification of the privilege granted by the Fifth Amendment). 2001See State v. Green, 254 Kan. 669, 676 , 867 P.2d 366 (1994) (explaining that K.S.A. 60-425 is merely the codification of the privilege granted by the Fifth Amendment). | 1 | 1 |
Educational Ass'n of Christian Churches v. Hitchcockgreen1 sentence1972See Ed. Ass’n v. Hitchcock, 4 Kan. 36 (1866); State, ex rel., v. Showalter, 189 Kan. 562, 570 , 370 P. 2d 408 (1962). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Kansas. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Cain v. Steely
neutral
2 sentences2026Before the codification of the rule, in Cain v. Steely, 173 Kan. 866, 870 , 252 P.2d 909 (1953), the Kansas Supreme Court held it was a long-standing rule that a physician could not testify as to what a patient told him or her with respect to the history of the case or the cause or duration of the injury. 2026Before the codification of the rule, in Cain v. Steely, 173 Kan. 866, 870 , 252 P.2d 909 (1953), the Kansas Supreme Court held it was a long-standing rule that a physician could not testify as to what a patient told him or her with respect to the history of the case or the cause or duration of the injury. | 1 | 2026–2026 |
State v. Todd
neutral
2 sentences2026More recently, in State v. Todd, 24 Kan. App. 2d 796, 803-04 , 954 P.2d 1 (1998), this court concluded that under the plain language of K.S.A. 60-460(l)(2), the exception for doctor-patient communications did not extend to statements about the cause of the injury. 2026More recently, in State v. Todd, 24 Kan. App. 2d 796, 803-04 , 954 P.2d 1 (1998), this court concluded that under the plain language of K.S.A. 60-460(l)(2), the exception for doctor-patient communications did not extend to statements about the cause of the injury. | 1 | 2026–2026 |
Rostine v. City of Hutchinson
green
2 sentences2017In Rostine v. City of Hutchinson, 219 Kan. 320, 323-24 , 548 P.2d 756 (1976), this court held the italicized portion of the statute "is a codification of the rule of law of this state which prohibits the use of the 'summation method' of valuation. 6 "The 'summation method' denotes a process of appraisal whereby each of several items that contribute to the value of real estate are valued separately and the total represents the market value thereof. 2017In Rostine v. City of Hutchinson, 219 Kan. 320, 323-24 , 548 P.2d 756 (1976), this court held the italicized portion of the statute "is a codification of the rule of law of this state which prohibits the use of the 'summation method' of valuation. 6 "The 'summation method' denotes a process of appraisal whereby each of several items that contribute to the value of real estate are valued separately and the total represents the market value thereof. | 1 | 2017–2017 |
Terry v. Ohio
green
2 sentences1992The law governing the stop involved in this case is found at K.S.A. 1991 Supp. 22-2402(1): “Stopping of suspect. (1) Without making an arrest, a law enforcement officer may stop any person in a public place whom such officer reasonably suspects is committing, has committed or is about to commit a crime and may *249 demand . . . the name [and] address of such suspect and an explanation of such suspect’s actions.” The statute is a codification of the rule governing a stop and frisk under the United States Supreme Court case of Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 , 20 L. 1992The law governing the stop involved in this case is found at K.S.A. 1991 Supp. 22-2402(1): “Stopping of suspect. (1) Without making an arrest, a law enforcement officer may stop any person in a public place whom such officer reasonably suspects is committing, has committed or is about to commit a crime and may *249 demand . . . the name [and] address of such suspect and an explanation of such suspect’s actions.” The statute is a codification of the rule governing a stop and frisk under the United States Supreme Court case of Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 , 20 L. | 1 | 1992–1992 |
State Ex Rel. Ralston v. Showalter
green
2 sentences1972See Ed. Ass’n v. Hitchcock, 4 Kan. 36 (1866); State, ex rel., v. Showalter, 189 Kan. 562, 570 , 370 P. 2d 408 (1962). 1972See Ed. Ass’n v. Hitchcock, 4 Kan. 36 (1866); State, ex rel., v. Showalter, 189 Kan. 562, 570 , 370 P. 2d 408 (1962). | 1 | 1972–1972 |
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.