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 1926–2020 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 |
|---|---|---|
Brady v. Maryland
green
2 sentences2020Alternatively, Alvarez alleged that the State wrongly withheld this new evidence in the underlying criminal case in violation of Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 , 83 S. Ct. 1194 , 10 L. 2020Alternatively, Alvarez alleged that the State wrongly withheld this new evidence in the underlying criminal case in violation of Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 , 83 S. Ct. 1194 , 10 L. | 2 | 2020–2020 |
Smith v. United States
green
1 sentence2009Perhaps the first instance of the United States Supreme Court invoking the doctrine was in 1876, when the Court held that it was within its authority to “refuse to hear a criminal case in error, unless *322 the convicted party, suing out the writ, is where he can be made to respond to any judgment we may render.” Smith v. United States, 94 U.S. (4 Otto) 97, 97, 24 L. | 1 | 2009–2009 |
Green v. State
neutral
1 sentence1972Each of the following cases supports the rule that a timely challenge to the jury panel must be made: Cooley v. State, 174 Tenn. 168 , 124 S. W. 2d 250 , Kurn v. Campbell, 188 Okla. 636 , 112 P. 2d 386 ; Green v. State, 73 Ala. 26 . | 1 | 1972–1972 |
City of Shawnee v. Jeffers
neutral
1 sentence1972Each of the following cases supports the rule that a timely challenge to the jury panel must be made: Cooley v. State, 174 Tenn. 168 , 124 S. W. 2d 250 , Kurn v. Campbell, 188 Okla. 636 , 112 P. 2d 386 ; Green v. State, 73 Ala. 26 . | 1 | 1972–1972 |
Kurn v. Campbell
neutral
1 sentence1972Each of the following cases supports the rule that a timely challenge to the jury panel must be made: Cooley v. State, 174 Tenn. 168 , 124 S. W. 2d 250 , Kurn v. Campbell, 188 Okla. 636 , 112 P. 2d 386 ; Green v. State, 73 Ala. 26 . | 1 | 1972–1972 |
Cooley v. State
green
2 sentences1972Each of the following cases supports the rule that a timely challenge to the jury panel must be made: Cooley v. State, 174 Tenn. 168 , 124 S. W. 2d 250 , Kurn v. Campbell, 188 Okla. 636 , 112 P. 2d 386 ; Green v. State, 73 Ala. 26 . 1972Each of the following cases supports the rule that a timely challenge to the jury panel must be made: Cooley v. State, 174 Tenn. 168 , 124 S. W. 2d 250 , Kurn v. Campbell, 188 Okla. 636 , 112 P. 2d 386 ; Green v. State, 73 Ala. 26 . | 1 | 1972–1972 |
Underwood v. Fosha
green
2 sentences1926(Underwood v. Fosha, 73 Kan. 408 , 85 Pac. 564 .) The defendant in a criminal case has the privilege of being a witness in his own behalf. 1926(Underwood v. Fosha, 73 Kan. 408 , 85 Pac. 564 .) The defendant in a criminal case has the privilege of being a witness in his own behalf. | 1 | 1926–1926 |
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.
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.