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 1990–2024 2 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. Scaifegreen2 sentences2024"Direct evidence is such evidence which, if believed, proves the existence of a fact without inference or presumption, as for example the testimony of an eyewitness as to what he or she actually saw, heard, or touched." State v. Scaife, 286 Kan. 614, 620 , 186 P.3d 755 (2008). 2024"Direct evidence is such evidence which, if believed, proves the existence of a fact without inference or presumption, as for example the testimony of an eyewitness as to what he or she actually saw, heard, or touched." State v. Scaife, 286 Kan. 614, 620 , 186 P.3d 755 (2008). | 1 | 3 |
State v. Corbettgreen2 sentences2008See State v. Corbett, 281 Kan. 294, 309 , 130 P.3d 1179 (2006). 2008See State v. Corbett, 281 Kan. 294, 309 , 130 P.3d 1179 (2006). | 1 | 1 |
Mikele S. CARTER, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. CITY OF MIAMI, Jose Garcia-Pendrosa, Defendants-Appellantsgreen2 sentences1990In a recent case, Carter v. City of Miami, 870 F.2d 578, 581 (11th Cir. 1989), the court held that: “Initially, a plaintiff must establish a prima facie case of discrimination through one of three generally accepted methods: by direct evidence-of discriminatory intent; by meeting the four-pronged test set out for Title VII cases in McDonnell Douglas Corp. [citation omitted]; or through statistical proof.” The court-further stated: “Direct evidence of discrimination would be evidence which, if believed, would prove the existence of a fact without inference or presumption.” - 870 F.2d at 581-82 1990In a recent case, Carter v. City of Miami, 870 F.2d 578, 581 (11th Cir. 1989), the court held that: “Initially, a plaintiff must establish a prima facie case of discrimination through one of three generally accepted methods: by direct evidence-of discriminatory intent; by meeting the four-pronged test set out for Title VII cases in McDonnell Douglas Corp. [citation omitted]; or through statistical proof.” The court-further stated: “Direct evidence of discrimination would be evidence which, if believed, would prove the existence of a fact without inference or presumption.” - 870 F.2d at 581-82 | 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. Evans
green
2 sentences2024And "'[c]ircumstantial evidence tends to prove a fact in issue by proving other events or circumstances which afford a basis for reasonable inference by the jury of the occurrence of the fact in issue.'" State v. Evans, 275 Kan. 95, 105 , 62 P.3d 220 (2003). 2024And "'[c]ircumstantial evidence tends to prove a fact in issue by proving other events or circumstances which afford a basis for reasonable inference by the jury of the occurrence of the fact in issue.'" State v. Evans, 275 Kan. 95, 105 , 62 P.3d 220 (2003). | 2 | 2022–2024 |
State v. Sanders
green
2 sentences2008State v. Sanders, 258 Kan. 409, 416 , 904 P.2d 951 (1995)," (Emphasis added.) State v. Scaife, op. at 760. *765 The majority then defines direct evidence as evidence that, if believed, "proves the existence of a fact without inference or presumption, as for example the testimony of an eyewitness as to what he or she actually saw, heard, or touched. 2008State v. Sanders, 258 Kan. 409, 416 , 904 P.2d 951 (1995)," (Emphasis added.) State v. Scaife, op. at 760. *765 The majority then defines direct evidence as evidence that, if believed, "proves the existence of a fact without inference or presumption, as for example the testimony of an eyewitness as to what he or she actually saw, heard, or touched. | 1 | 2008–2008 |
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.