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 1988–2022 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 |
|---|---|---|
Barker v. Wingogreen1 sentence2020See Owens, 310 Kan. at 872-73 (citing Barker, 407 U.S. at 530-31 ). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Beyergreen2 sentences2017See In re Commitment of Beyer, 287 Wis. 2d 1, 33 , 707 N.W.2d 509 (2006).When the delay in hearing is caused by the district court's failure to act, a more appropriate remedy may be under a writ of mandamus to compel the court to take immediate action. 2017See In re Commitment of Beyer, 287 Wis. 2d 1, 33 , 707 N.W.2d 509 (2006).When the delay in hearing is caused by the district court's failure to act, a more appropriate remedy may be under a writ of mandamus to compel the court to take immediate action. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Kansas. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Griffin v. Bruffett
green
1 sentence2022But "[w]hen the delay in hearing is caused by the district court's failure to act, a more appropriate remedy may be under a writ of mandamus to compel the court to take immediate action." 53 Kan. | 1 | 2022–2022 |
In Re Carson
green
2 sentences2020In In re Carson, 252 Kan. 399, 410 , 845 P.2d 47 (1993), the court held that to assert the delay as a defense, "there must be a showing of prejudice to the party asserting such delay as a defense." In his statement of exceptions, Murphy claims "[i]t is entirely reasonable for respondent not to remember every detail of the subject matter which took place 15 years in the past, and the contradiction stated by the panel is simply a reflection of the best recollection of respondent." While this statement was not provided before the panel, more than 10 years of the delay is an undisputed fact. 2020In In re Carson, 252 Kan. 399, 410 , 845 P.2d 47 (1993), the court held that to assert the delay as a defense, "there must be a showing of prejudice to the party asserting such delay as a defense." In his statement of exceptions, Murphy claims "[i]t is entirely reasonable for respondent not to remember every detail of the subject matter which took place 15 years in the past, and the contradiction stated by the panel is simply a reflection of the best recollection of respondent." While this statement was not provided before the panel, more than 10 years of the delay is an undisputed fact. | 1 | 2020–2020 |
Cleveland Board of Education v. Loudermill
green
2 sentences1988In Cleveland Board of Education v. Loudermill, 470 U.S. 532 , 84 L.Ed.2d 494 , 105 S.Ct. 1487 (1985), the United States Supreme Court rejected the teacher's argument that a delay in a hearing which does not cause harm can violate due process. 1988In Cleveland Board of Education v. Loudermill, 470 U.S. 532 , 84 L.Ed.2d 494 , 105 S.Ct. 1487 (1985), the United States Supreme Court rejected the teacher's argument that a delay in a hearing which does not cause harm can violate due process. | 1 | 1988–1988 |
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.