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 2012–2026 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. Marxgreen2 sentences2024See State v. Marx, 289 Kan. 657, 661 , 215 P.3d 601 (2009) (negative finding standard should 9 not be "applied to undermine the de novo, independent review of legal questions with which appellate courts are properly imbued"); see also State v. Garza, 295 Kan. 326, 331 , 286 P.3d 554 (2012) (declining to apply negative finding standard on appeal from motion to suppress because resolving appeal only required statutory interpretation). 2024See State v. Marx, 289 Kan. 657, 661 , 215 P.3d 601 (2009) (negative finding standard should 9 not be "applied to undermine the de novo, independent review of legal questions with which appellate courts are properly imbued"); see also State v. Garza, 295 Kan. 326, 331 , 286 P.3d 554 (2012) (declining to apply negative finding standard on appeal from motion to suppress because resolving appeal only required statutory interpretation). | 1 | 2 |
In the Interest of L.C.W.green1 sentence2026Under this standard of review, "a negative finding . . . may not be reversed unless there was an arbitrary disregard of undisputed evidence or the district court's ruling was a result of bias, passion, or prejudice." 42 Kan. | 1 | 1 |
State v. Garzagreen2 sentences2024See State v. Marx, 289 Kan. 657, 661 , 215 P.3d 601 (2009) (negative finding standard should 9 not be "applied to undermine the de novo, independent review of legal questions with which appellate courts are properly imbued"); see also State v. Garza, 295 Kan. 326, 331 , 286 P.3d 554 (2012) (declining to apply negative finding standard on appeal from motion to suppress because resolving appeal only required statutory interpretation). 2024See State v. Marx, 289 Kan. 657, 661 , 215 P.3d 601 (2009) (negative finding standard should 9 not be "applied to undermine the de novo, independent review of legal questions with which appellate courts are properly imbued"); see also State v. Garza, 295 Kan. 326, 331 , 286 P.3d 554 (2012) (declining to apply negative finding standard on appeal from motion to suppress because resolving appeal only required statutory interpretation). | 1 | 1 |
Cresto v. Crestogreen2 sentences2020See Cresto v. Cresto, 302 Kan. 820, 845 , 358 P.3d 831 (2015). 2020See Cresto v. Cresto, 302 Kan. 820, 845 , 358 P.3d 831 (2015). | 1 | 1 |
143rd Street Investors, L.L.C. v. Board of County Commissionersgreen2 sentences2012Generally, “ ⅛ negative finding that a party did not cariy its requisite burden of proof will not be disturbed on appeal absent proof of an arbitrary disregard of undisputed evidence or some extrinsic consideration such as bias, passion, or prejudice.’ ” Dalmasso v. Dalmasso, 269 Kan. 752, 758 , 9 P.3d 551 (2000) (quoting Beech Aircraft Corp. v. Kansas Human Rights Comm’n, 254 Kan. 270, 275 , 864 P.2d 1148 [1993]); see 143rd Street Investors v. Board of Johnson County Comrnrs, 292 Kan. 690, 720 , 259 P.3d 644 (2011). 2012Generally, “ ⅛ negative finding that a party did not cariy its requisite burden of proof will not be disturbed on appeal absent proof of an arbitrary disregard of undisputed evidence or some extrinsic consideration such as bias, passion, or prejudice.’ ” Dalmasso v. Dalmasso, 269 Kan. 752, 758 , 9 P.3d 551 (2000) (quoting Beech Aircraft Corp. v. Kansas Human Rights Comm’n, 254 Kan. 270, 275 , 864 P.2d 1148 [1993]); see 143rd Street Investors v. Board of Johnson County Comrnrs, 292 Kan. 690, 720 , 259 P.3d 644 (2011). | 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. Adams
green
2 sentences2012As the State maintains, this court clearly set forth in Haddock II the standard of review to be applied when the question presented is whether a new trial must be granted based on favorable evidence: “[J]ust as an order granting a new trial under K.S.A. 22-3501(1) is subject to an abuse of discretion, the standard of appellate review of a trial court’s order under K.S.A. 2005 Supp. 21-2512 is whether the trial court abused its discretion.” Haddock II, 282 Kan. at 499 (citing State v. Adams, 280 Kan. 494, 501 , 124 P.3d 19 [2005], disapproved on other grounds by State v. Warrior, 294 Kan. 484 , 2012As the State maintains, this court clearly set forth in Haddock II the standard of review to be applied when the question presented is whether a new trial must be granted based on favorable evidence: “[J]ust as an order granting a new trial under K.S.A. 22-3501(1) is subject to an abuse of discretion, the standard of appellate review of a trial court’s order under K.S.A. 2005 Supp. 21-2512 is whether the trial court abused its discretion.” Haddock II, 282 Kan. at 499 (citing State v. Adams, 280 Kan. 494, 501 , 124 P.3d 19 [2005], disapproved on other grounds by State v. Warrior, 294 Kan. 484 , | 1 | 2012–2012 |
Kyles v. Whitley
green
1 sentence2012In examining materiality under K.S.A. 21-2512, Haddock suggests we should look to caselaw applying the Brady test and, specifically, to the guidelines outlined by the United States Supreme Court in Kyles, 514 U.S. 419 . | 1 | 2012–2012 |
Haddock v. State
green
1 sentence2012As the State maintains, this court clearly set forth in Haddock II the standard of review to be applied when the question presented is whether a new trial must be granted based on favorable evidence: “[J]ust as an order granting a new trial under K.S.A. 22-3501(1) is subject to an abuse of discretion, the standard of appellate review of a trial court’s order under K.S.A. 2005 Supp. 21-2512 is whether the trial court abused its discretion.” Haddock II, 282 Kan. at 499 (citing State v. Adams, 280 Kan. 494, 501 , 124 P.3d 19 [2005], disapproved on other grounds by State v. Warrior, 294 Kan. 484 , | 1 | 2012–2012 |
Lostutter v. Estate of Larkin
green
2 sentences2012Garza relies on Lostutter v. Estate of Larkin, 235 Kan. 154 , Syl. ¶ 1, 679 P.2d 181 (1984), to argue that this court must find the trial court displayed an arbitrary disregard of undisputed evidence or some extrinsic consideration such as bias, passion, or prejudice. 2012Garza relies on Lostutter v. Estate of Larkin, 235 Kan. 154 , Syl. ¶ 1, 679 P.2d 181 (1984), to argue that this court must find the trial court displayed an arbitrary disregard of undisputed evidence or some extrinsic consideration such as bias, passion, or prejudice. | 1 | 2012–2012 |
Dalmasso v. Dalmasso
green
2 sentences2012Generally, “ ⅛ negative finding that a party did not cariy its requisite burden of proof will not be disturbed on appeal absent proof of an arbitrary disregard of undisputed evidence or some extrinsic consideration such as bias, passion, or prejudice.’ ” Dalmasso v. Dalmasso, 269 Kan. 752, 758 , 9 P.3d 551 (2000) (quoting Beech Aircraft Corp. v. Kansas Human Rights Comm’n, 254 Kan. 270, 275 , 864 P.2d 1148 [1993]); see 143rd Street Investors v. Board of Johnson County Comrnrs, 292 Kan. 690, 720 , 259 P.3d 644 (2011). 2012Generally, “ ⅛ negative finding that a party did not cariy its requisite burden of proof will not be disturbed on appeal absent proof of an arbitrary disregard of undisputed evidence or some extrinsic consideration such as bias, passion, or prejudice.’ ” Dalmasso v. Dalmasso, 269 Kan. 752, 758 , 9 P.3d 551 (2000) (quoting Beech Aircraft Corp. v. Kansas Human Rights Comm’n, 254 Kan. 270, 275 , 864 P.2d 1148 [1993]); see 143rd Street Investors v. Board of Johnson County Comrnrs, 292 Kan. 690, 720 , 259 P.3d 644 (2011). | 1 | 2012–2012 |
Beech Aircraft Corp. v. Kansas Human Rights Commission
green
2 sentences2012Generally, “ ⅛ negative finding that a party did not cariy its requisite burden of proof will not be disturbed on appeal absent proof of an arbitrary disregard of undisputed evidence or some extrinsic consideration such as bias, passion, or prejudice.’ ” Dalmasso v. Dalmasso, 269 Kan. 752, 758 , 9 P.3d 551 (2000) (quoting Beech Aircraft Corp. v. Kansas Human Rights Comm’n, 254 Kan. 270, 275 , 864 P.2d 1148 [1993]); see 143rd Street Investors v. Board of Johnson County Comrnrs, 292 Kan. 690, 720 , 259 P.3d 644 (2011). 2012Generally, “ ⅛ negative finding that a party did not cariy its requisite burden of proof will not be disturbed on appeal absent proof of an arbitrary disregard of undisputed evidence or some extrinsic consideration such as bias, passion, or prejudice.’ ” Dalmasso v. Dalmasso, 269 Kan. 752, 758 , 9 P.3d 551 (2000) (quoting Beech Aircraft Corp. v. Kansas Human Rights Comm’n, 254 Kan. 270, 275 , 864 P.2d 1148 [1993]); see 143rd Street Investors v. Board of Johnson County Comrnrs, 292 Kan. 690, 720 , 259 P.3d 644 (2011). | 1 | 2012–2012 |
State v. WARRIOR
green
2 sentences2012As the State maintains, this court clearly set forth in Haddock II the standard of review to be applied when the question presented is whether a new trial must be granted based on favorable evidence: “[J]ust as an order granting a new trial under K.S.A. 22-3501(1) is subject to an abuse of discretion, the standard of appellate review of a trial court’s order under K.S.A. 2005 Supp. 21-2512 is whether the trial court abused its discretion.” Haddock II, 282 Kan. at 499 (citing State v. Adams, 280 Kan. 494, 501 , 124 P.3d 19 [2005], disapproved on other grounds by State v. Warrior, 294 Kan. 484 , 2012As the State maintains, this court clearly set forth in Haddock II the standard of review to be applied when the question presented is whether a new trial must be granted based on favorable evidence: “[J]ust as an order granting a new trial under K.S.A. 22-3501(1) is subject to an abuse of discretion, the standard of appellate review of a trial court’s order under K.S.A. 2005 Supp. 21-2512 is whether the trial court abused its discretion.” Haddock II, 282 Kan. at 499 (citing State v. Adams, 280 Kan. 494, 501 , 124 P.3d 19 [2005], disapproved on other grounds by State v. Warrior, 294 Kan. 484 , | 1 | 2012–2012 |