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 2012–2022 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 |
|---|---|---|
| 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 |
|---|---|---|
State v. Richardson
green
2 sentences2022Relying on our Supreme Court's holding in State v. Richardson, 290 Kan. 176, 180-81 , 224 P.3d 553 (2010), Gaskill asserts "the complex nature of what constitutes a moving violation for any particular purpose requires that some sort of evidence be presented to show that the acts relied upon by the State actually constituted moving violations." Gaskill does not favor us with any on-point legal authority in support of her novel proposition. 2022Relying on our Supreme Court's holding in State v. Richardson, 290 Kan. 176, 180-81 , 224 P.3d 553 (2010), Gaskill asserts "the complex nature of what constitutes a moving violation for any particular purpose requires that some sort of evidence be presented to show that the acts relied upon by the State actually constituted moving violations." Gaskill does not favor us with any on-point legal authority in support of her novel proposition. | 3 | 2020–2022 |
– State v. Jenkins –
green
2 sentences2022What constitutes a moving violation is a question of law." Our Supreme Court has held K.A.R. 92-52-9 "refers to a list of Kansas statutes and states unequivocally that violations of these statues constitute moving violations." State v. Jenkins, 311 Kan. 39 , 55-56, 455 P.3d 779 (2020). 2022What constitutes a moving violation is a question of law." Our Supreme Court has held K.A.R. 92-52-9 "refers to a list of Kansas statutes and states unequivocally that violations of these statues constitute moving violations." State v. Jenkins, 311 Kan. 39 , 55-56, 455 P.3d 779 (2020). | 1 | 2022–2022 |
State v. Williams
green
2 sentences2014Standards of Review Castlebeny did not request that the district court instruct the juiy on what constitutes a moving violation; therefore, our standard of review is governed by K.S.A. 22-3414(3) and State v. Williams, 295 Kan. 506, 511 , 286 P.3d 195 (2012). 2014Standards of Review Castlebeny did not request that the district court instruct the juiy on what constitutes a moving violation; therefore, our standard of review is governed by K.S.A. 22-3414(3) and State v. Williams, 295 Kan. 506, 511 , 286 P.3d 195 (2012). | 1 | 2014–2014 |
Campbell v. Kansas Department of Revenue
green
1 sentence2012More important, the Campbell court’s articulated test for probable cause to arrest was overly generous to the KDOR, i.e., requiring only “that quantum of evidence that would lead a reasonably prudent police officer to believe that guilt is more than a mere possibility.” (Emphasis added.) 25 Kan. | 1 | 2012–2012 |
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.