5 Kansas opinions name it 2 courts 2005–2021 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 |
|---|---|---|
Biglow v. Eidenberggreen1 sentence2018See Biglow v. Eidenberg , 308 Kan. ----, 424 P.3d 515 (this day decided), slip op. at 29 (holding district court within discretion to prohibit during closing argument a "broad and abstract statement that a physician's job is to 'take care of people and help people, but really the safety' " because it did nothing to establish a deviation from the standard of care). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Charlesgreen2 sentences2018See Charles , 304 Kan. at 175 , 372 P.3d 1109 ; see Sherman , 305 Kan. at 117 , 378 P.3d 1060 (Prosecutors "must be evaluated based on the state of the law at the time of [the] trial."). 2018See Charles , 304 Kan. at 175 , 372 P.3d 1109 ; see Sherman , 305 Kan. at 117 , 378 P.3d 1060 (Prosecutors "must be evaluated based on the state of the law at the time of [the] trial."). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Williamsgreen2 sentences2015See State v. Williams, 299 Kan. 911, 938 , 329 P.3d 400 (2014) (considering responsive nature of comments in prejudice analysis, but not applying immunity based on this fact); State v. Marshall, 294 Kan. 850, 860-61 , 281 P.3d 1112 (2012) (responsive, extemporaneous, or rebuttal nature of a prosecutor’s improper comment or argument is a factor relevant to the prejudice analysis, albeit not determinative). 2015See State v. Williams, 299 Kan. 911, 938 , 329 P.3d 400 (2014) (considering responsive nature of comments in prejudice analysis, but not applying immunity based on this fact); State v. Marshall, 294 Kan. 850, 860-61 , 281 P.3d 1112 (2012) (responsive, extemporaneous, or rebuttal nature of a prosecutor’s improper comment or argument is a factor relevant to the prejudice analysis, albeit not determinative). | 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. Maestas
green
2 sentences2021As in State v. 11 Maestas, 298 Kan. 765, 778 , 316 P.3d 724 (2014), while the comments may be "speculative," they are not improper based on the facts presented at trial. 2021As in State v. 11 Maestas, 298 Kan. 765, 778 , 316 P.3d 724 (2014), while the comments may be "speculative," they are not improper based on the facts presented at trial. | 1 | 2021–2021 |
State v. Marshall
green
2 sentences2015See State v. Williams, 299 Kan. 911, 938 , 329 P.3d 400 (2014) (considering responsive nature of comments in prejudice analysis, but not applying immunity based on this fact); State v. Marshall, 294 Kan. 850, 860-61 , 281 P.3d 1112 (2012) (responsive, extemporaneous, or rebuttal nature of a prosecutor’s improper comment or argument is a factor relevant to the prejudice analysis, albeit not determinative). 2015See State v. Williams, 299 Kan. 911, 938 , 329 P.3d 400 (2014) (considering responsive nature of comments in prejudice analysis, but not applying immunity based on this fact); State v. Marshall, 294 Kan. 850, 860-61 , 281 P.3d 1112 (2012) (responsive, extemporaneous, or rebuttal nature of a prosecutor’s improper comment or argument is a factor relevant to the prejudice analysis, albeit not determinative). | 1 | 2015–2015 |
State v. LOCKHART, JR.
green
1 sentence2005Although Ingram cites to State v. Lockhart, 24 Kan. | 1 | 2005–2005 |
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.