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 2016–2026 3 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. Sharkeygreen2 sentences2026See State v. 20 Sharkey, 299 Kan. 87, 96 , 322 P.3d 325 (2014) (holding when district court becomes aware of possible conflict of interest between attorney and defendant, court has duty to inquire further). 2026See State v. 20 Sharkey, 299 Kan. 87, 96 , 322 P.3d 325 (2014) (holding when district court becomes aware of possible conflict of interest between attorney and defendant, court has duty to inquire further). | 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. Logsdon
green
2 sentences2022State v. Logsdon, 304 Kan. 3, 21 , 371 P.3d 836 (2016). 2022State v. Logsdon, 304 Kan. 3, 21 , 371 P.3d 836 (2016). | 2 | 2017–2022 |
State v. James
green
1 sentence2021Thus, this court held the failure to call the neighbor was "serious error which prejudiced appellant." 31 Kan. | 1 | 2021–2021 |
State v. Frye
green
2 sentences2016An appellate court reviews a sufficiency of the evidence challenge “by looking at all the evidence in a light most favorable to the prosecution and determining whether a rational factfinder could have found the defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.” State v. Frye, 294 Kan. 364, 374-75 , 277 P.3d 1091 (2012). 2016An appellate court reviews a sufficiency of the evidence challenge “by looking at all the evidence in a light most favorable to the prosecution and determining whether a rational factfinder could have found the defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.” State v. Frye, 294 Kan. 364, 374-75 , 277 P.3d 1091 (2012). | 1 | 2016–2016 |
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.