intervening cause instruction (Kansas) · Go Syfert
← Kansas issues

intervening cause instruction in Kansas

5 Kansas opinions name it 2 courts 1943–2025 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.

Followed or applied (2)

CaseFollowedCited
State v. Brammergreen
kan · 2015 · cited in 1 Kansas opinions naming this issue, 2015–2015
2 sentences

2015See also State v. Brammer, 301 Kan. 333, 342-43 , 343 P.3d 75 (2015) (in an involuntary manslaughter while driving under the influence prosecution, a defendant may be entitled to an intervening cause instruction if the defendant argues and produces evidence that the victim’s failure to wear a seat belt caused her death).

2015See also State v. Brammer, 301 Kan. 333, 342-43 , 343 P.3d 75 (2015) (in an involuntary manslaughter while driving under the influence prosecution, a defendant may be entitled to an intervening cause instruction if the defendant argues and produces evidence that the victim’s failure to wear a seat belt caused her death).

11
State v. Kunellisgreen
kan · 2003 · cited in 1 Kansas opinions naming this issue, 2003–2003
1 sentence

2003See 276 Kan. at 482-84 .

11

Distinguished, questioned or overruled (0)

CaseNegativeCited
No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Kansas. Read the followed side critically anyway.

Also cited on this issue (7)

CaseCitedYears
State v. Bale green
kanctapp · 2008
1 sentence

2025But this court found that Bale presented no evidence at trial suggesting that Casey was at fault for being behind the vehicle and causing his own death. 39 Kan.

12025–2025
James v. Kloos green
texapp · 2002
1 sentence

2010James, 75 S.W.3d at 163 .

12010–2010
Vallery v. State green
nev · 2002
2 sentences

2010App. 1996) (holding that trial court in medical malpractice action against neurologist and nurse involved in treating stroke victim did not err in failing to give an intervening cause instruction; while defendants claimed that victim suffered cardiac arrest and ultimately died from stroke rather than from adverse reaction to drug they had administered, there was no argument that cardiac arrest was caused by both drug and stroke); Vallery v. State, 118 Nev. 357, 375 , 46 P.3d 66 (2002) (holding that defendant was not entitled to intervening cause instruction in prosecution for elder abuse invol

2010App. 1996) (holding that trial court in medical malpractice action against neurologist and nurse involved in treating stroke victim did not err in failing to give an intervening cause instruction; while defendants claimed that victim suffered cardiac arrest and ultimately died from stroke rather than from adverse reaction to drug they had administered, there was no argument that cardiac arrest was caused by both drug and stroke); Vallery v. State, 118 Nev. 357, 375 , 46 P.3d 66 (2002) (holding that defendant was not entitled to intervening cause instruction in prosecution for elder abuse invol

12010–2010
White v. Premier Medical Group green
tennctapp · 2007
1 sentence

2010Nor does the second case from the Tennessee Court of Appeals cited by Nurse Deruy and Dr. Paoni — White, 254 S.W.3d 411— persuade us that an intervening cause instruction was appropriate in this case.

12010–2010
Godbee v. Dimick green
tennctapp · 2006
1 sentence

2010Godbee, 213 S.W.3d at 897 .

12010–2010
Sacco v. Carothers green
neb · 1997
2 sentences

2010In Sacco v. Carothers, 253 Neb. 9, 16 , 567 N.W.2d 299 (1997), the court stated: “A litigant is entitled to have the jury instructed only upon those theories of the case which are presented by the pleadings and which are supported by competent evidence.” Under this standard, giving an intervening cause instruction was not justified, leading the court to conclude: “An instruction on a matter not an issue in the litigation distracts the jury from its effort to answer legitimate, factual questions raised during the trial. [Citation omitted.] Submission of an issue on which the evidence is insuffi

2010In Sacco v. Carothers, 253 Neb. 9, 16 , 567 N.W.2d 299 (1997), the court stated: “A litigant is entitled to have the jury instructed only upon those theories of the case which are presented by the pleadings and which are supported by competent evidence.” Under this standard, giving an intervening cause instruction was not justified, leading the court to conclude: “An instruction on a matter not an issue in the litigation distracts the jury from its effort to answer legitimate, factual questions raised during the trial. [Citation omitted.] Submission of an issue on which the evidence is insuffi

12010–2010
d'Almeida v. Boston & Maine Railroad green
mass · 1911
2 sentences

1943It was cited and distinguished in D’Almeida v. Boston & Maine Railroad, 209 Mass. 81 , 95 N. E. 398 , where the employee of a coal company was killed while unloading a car of coal consigned to his employer, who had used the car in its business as a part of its works.

1943It was cited and distinguished in D’Almeida v. Boston & Maine Railroad, 209 Mass. 81 , 95 N. E. 398 , where the employee of a coal company was killed while unloading a car of coal consigned to his employer, who had used the car in its business as a part of its works.

11943–1943

Where else courts name it

CO 17 (1997–2026) TN 16 (2000–2019) NM 13 (1976–2022) CT 8 (1995–2007) IL 6 (2014–2025) FL 6 (1988–2012) KS 5 (1943–2025) WV 4 (2016–2020) MA 3 (1995–2007) OH 2 (1996–2007) MT 2 (2002–2006) WY 2 (1995–2011) NC 2 (1951–1995) MD 2 (1975–2024) IN 2 (1994–2002) DC 2 (1979–1979)

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.

← Caselaw search · G Cite Topics · Brief Check