5 Kansas opinions name it 2 courts 2002–2022 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 |
|---|---|---|
State v. Pabstgreen2 sentences2008See also State v. Pabst, 268 Kan. 501, 505-07, 509-12 , 996 P.2d 321 (2000) (prosecutor committed reversible misconduct by calling the defendant a liar at least 11 times during closing argument and by commenting on the credibility of the State's witness). 2008See also State v. Pabst, 268 Kan. 501, 505-07, 509-12 , 996 P.2d 321 (2000) (prosecutor committed reversible misconduct by calling the defendant a liar at least 11 times during closing argument and by commenting on the credibility of the State's witness). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Kansas. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Smyre v. Board of County Commissioners
green
1 sentence2022The court relied on the rule that when an owner of land permits another repeatedly to do acts on the land, a license can be implied from the landowner's failure to object. 89 Kan. at 669 . | 1 | 2022–2022 |
State v. Richardson
green
1 sentence2022Richardson, 290 Kan. at 178 ; Daniels, 278 Kan. at 57 . | 1 | 2022–2022 |
State v. Wilkerson
green
1 sentence2022Richardson, 290 Kan. at 178 ; Daniels, 278 Kan. at 57 . | 1 | 2022–2022 |
Johnson v. Johnson County
neutral
1 sentence2011Johnson, 36 Kan. | 1 | 2011–2011 |
State v. Elnicki
green
2 sentences2008In State v. Elnicki, 279 Kan. 47, 53 , 105 P.3d 1222 (2005), the court relied on this rule that witnesses cannot comment on other witnesses' credibility as a basis for its conclusion that it was error to show a videotaped interrogation to the jury wherein a police detective repeatedly called the defendant a liar and made other comments regarding the defendant's credibility. 2008In State v. Elnicki, 279 Kan. 47, 53 , 105 P.3d 1222 (2005), the court relied on this rule that witnesses cannot comment on other witnesses' credibility as a basis for its conclusion that it was error to show a videotaped interrogation to the jury wherein a police detective repeatedly called the defendant a liar and made other comments regarding the defendant's credibility. | 1 | 2008–2008 |
Arizona v. Youngblood
green
2 sentences2002This court relied on the analysis in Arizona v. Youngblood, 488 U.S. 51 , 102 L. 2002This court relied on the analysis in Arizona v. Youngblood, 488 U.S. 51 , 102 L. | 1 | 2002–2002 |
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.