restated rule in Kansas

2000Recently, this court restated the standard of review in State v. Harris, 259 Kan. 689, 702 , 915 P.2d 758 (1996): "We have held that a criminal defendant has a right to an instruction on all lesser included offenses supported by the evidence at trial so long as (1) the evidence, when viewed in the light most favorable to the defendant's theory, would justify a jury verdict in accord with the defendant's theory and (2) the evidence at trial does not exclude a theory of guilt on the lesser offense.'" State v. Moncla, 262 Kan. 58, 73-74 , 936 P.2d 727 (1997).

2000Recently, this court restated the standard of review in State v. Harris, 259 Kan. 689, 702 , 915 P.2d 758 (1996): "We have held that a criminal defendant has a right to an instruction on all lesser included offenses supported by the evidence at trial so long as (1) the evidence, when viewed in the light most favorable to the defendant's theory, would justify a jury verdict in accord with the defendant's theory and (2) the evidence at trial does not exclude a theory of guilt on the lesser offense.'" State v. Moncla, 262 Kan. 58, 73-74 , 936 P.2d 727 (1997).

2000Recently, this court restated the standard of review in State v. Harris, 259 Kan. 689, 702 , 915 P.2d 758 (1996): "We have held that a criminal defendant has a right to an instruction on all lesser included offenses supported by the evidence at trial so long as (1) the evidence, when viewed in the light most favorable to the defendant's theory, would justify a jury verdict in accord with the defendant's theory and (2) the evidence at trial does not exclude a theory of guilt on the lesser offense.'" State v. Moncla, 262 Kan. 58, 73-74 , 936 P.2d 727 (1997).

2000Recently, this court restated the standard of review in State v. Harris, 259 Kan. 689, 702 , 915 P.2d 758 (1996): "We have held that a criminal defendant has a right to an instruction on all lesser included offenses supported by the evidence at trial so long as (1) the evidence, when viewed in the light most favorable to the defendant's theory, would justify a jury verdict in accord with the defendant's theory and (2) the evidence at trial does not exclude a theory of guilt on the lesser offense.'" State v. Moncla, 262 Kan. 58, 73-74 , 936 P.2d 727 (1997).

1997Kingsley, 252 Kan. at 782 .

1995This court restated the test in State v. Poole, 252 Kan. 108 , Syl. ¶ 1, 843 P.2d 689 (1992): “A three-step analysis is used to determine if the State’s use of peremptory strikes violates the Equal Protection Clause.

1995This court restated the test in State v. Poole, 252 Kan. 108 , Syl. ¶ 1, 843 P.2d 689 (1992): “A three-step analysis is used to determine if the State’s use of peremptory strikes violates the Equal Protection Clause.

1982In our judgment, it must be held that the reasonableness or unreasonableness of rates prescribed by a State for the transportation of persons and property wholly within its limits must be determined without reference to the interstate business done by the carrier, or to the profits derived from it.” In The Minnesota Rate Cases, 230 U.S. 352, 435 , 57 L.Ed. 1511 , 33 S.Ct. 729 (1913), the court restated the rule: *240 “Where the business of the carrier is both interstate and intrastate, the question whether a scheme of maximum rates fixed by the State for intrastate transportation affords a fai

1982In our judgment, it must be held that the reasonableness or unreasonableness of rates prescribed by a State for the transportation of persons and property wholly within its limits must be determined without reference to the interstate business done by the carrier, or to the profits derived from it.” In The Minnesota Rate Cases, 230 U.S. 352, 435 , 57 L.Ed. 1511 , 33 S.Ct. 729 (1913), the court restated the rule: *240 “Where the business of the carrier is both interstate and intrastate, the question whether a scheme of maximum rates fixed by the State for intrastate transportation affords a fai

1936In ruling on a demurrer to evidence, the court does not pass on conflicting evidence; (Kerr v. Kerr, 85 Kan. 460 , 116 Pac. 880 ; Hyland v. Railway Co., 96 Kan. 432, 151 Pac. 1107 ; Rosenfeld Co. v. Gleed, 110 Kan. 75 , 202 Pac. 611 ; Rowan v. Rosenthal, 113 Kan. 604 , 215 Pac. 1008 .) In the case of Prewett v. Sholl, 120 Kan. 158 , 242 Pac. 149 , this court restated the rule which had been many times previously stated, when it said: “In passing upon the demurrer the court was required to view the evidence given in the light most favorable to plaintiff and allow all reasonable inferences in he

1936In ruling on a demurrer to evidence, the court does not pass on conflicting evidence; (Kerr v. Kerr, 85 Kan. 460 , 116 Pac. 880 ; Hyland v. Railway Co., 96 Kan. 432, 151 Pac. 1107 ; Rosenfeld Co. v. Gleed, 110 Kan. 75 , 202 Pac. 611 ; Rowan v. Rosenthal, 113 Kan. 604 , 215 Pac. 1008 .) In the case of Prewett v. Sholl, 120 Kan. 158 , 242 Pac. 149 , this court restated the rule which had been many times previously stated, when it said: “In passing upon the demurrer the court was required to view the evidence given in the light most favorable to plaintiff and allow all reasonable inferences in he

1936In ruling on a demurrer to evidence, the court does not pass on conflicting evidence; (Kerr v. Kerr, 85 Kan. 460 , 116 Pac. 880 ; Hyland v. Railway Co., 96 Kan. 432, 151 Pac. 1107 ; Rosenfeld Co. v. Gleed, 110 Kan. 75 , 202 Pac. 611 ; Rowan v. Rosenthal, 113 Kan. 604 , 215 Pac. 1008 .) In the case of Prewett v. Sholl, 120 Kan. 158 , 242 Pac. 149 , this court restated the rule which had been many times previously stated, when it said: “In passing upon the demurrer the court was required to view the evidence given in the light most favorable to plaintiff and allow all reasonable inferences in he

1936In ruling on a demurrer to evidence, the court does not pass on conflicting evidence; (Kerr v. Kerr, 85 Kan. 460 , 116 Pac. 880 ; Hyland v. Railway Co., 96 Kan. 432, 151 Pac. 1107 ; Rosenfeld Co. v. Gleed, 110 Kan. 75 , 202 Pac. 611 ; Rowan v. Rosenthal, 113 Kan. 604 , 215 Pac. 1008 .) In the case of Prewett v. Sholl, 120 Kan. 158 , 242 Pac. 149 , this court restated the rule which had been many times previously stated, when it said: “In passing upon the demurrer the court was required to view the evidence given in the light most favorable to plaintiff and allow all reasonable inferences in he

1936In the case of State, ex rel., v. Gerhards, 99 Kan. 462 , 162 Pac. 1149 , the rule was stated thus: “Tested by demurrer, the evidence was entitled to full credence and to be' considered in its most favorable and propitious light towards the party which adduced it.” (p. 464.) Applying the foregoing rule to appellee’s evidence, we are obliged to hold the evidence established negligence on the part of appellant.

1936In the case of State, ex rel., v. Gerhards, 99 Kan. 462 , 162 Pac. 1149 , the rule was stated thus: “Tested by demurrer, the evidence was entitled to full credence and to be' considered in its most favorable and propitious light towards the party which adduced it.” (p. 464.) Applying the foregoing rule to appellee’s evidence, we are obliged to hold the evidence established negligence on the part of appellant.

1936In ruling on a demurrer to evidence, the court does not pass on conflicting evidence; (Kerr v. Kerr, 85 Kan. 460 , 116 Pac. 880 ; Hyland v. Railway Co., 96 Kan. 432, 151 Pac. 1107 ; Rosenfeld Co. v. Gleed, 110 Kan. 75 , 202 Pac. 611 ; Rowan v. Rosenthal, 113 Kan. 604 , 215 Pac. 1008 .) In the case of Prewett v. Sholl, 120 Kan. 158 , 242 Pac. 149 , this court restated the rule which had been many times previously stated, when it said: “In passing upon the demurrer the court was required to view the evidence given in the light most favorable to plaintiff and allow all reasonable inferences in he

1936In ruling on a demurrer to evidence, the court does not pass on conflicting evidence; (Kerr v. Kerr, 85 Kan. 460 , 116 Pac. 880 ; Hyland v. Railway Co., 96 Kan. 432, 151 Pac. 1107 ; Rosenfeld Co. v. Gleed, 110 Kan. 75 , 202 Pac. 611 ; Rowan v. Rosenthal, 113 Kan. 604 , 215 Pac. 1008 .) In the case of Prewett v. Sholl, 120 Kan. 158 , 242 Pac. 149 , this court restated the rule which had been many times previously stated, when it said: “In passing upon the demurrer the court was required to view the evidence given in the light most favorable to plaintiff and allow all reasonable inferences in he

1936In ruling on a demurrer to evidence, the court does not pass on conflicting evidence; (Kerr v. Kerr, 85 Kan. 460 , 116 Pac. 880 ; Hyland v. Railway Co., 96 Kan. 432, 151 Pac. 1107 ; Rosenfeld Co. v. Gleed, 110 Kan. 75 , 202 Pac. 611 ; Rowan v. Rosenthal, 113 Kan. 604 , 215 Pac. 1008 .) In the case of Prewett v. Sholl, 120 Kan. 158 , 242 Pac. 149 , this court restated the rule which had been many times previously stated, when it said: “In passing upon the demurrer the court was required to view the evidence given in the light most favorable to plaintiff and allow all reasonable inferences in he

1936In ruling on a demurrer to evidence, the court does not pass on conflicting evidence; (Kerr v. Kerr, 85 Kan. 460 , 116 Pac. 880 ; Hyland v. Railway Co., 96 Kan. 432, 151 Pac. 1107 ; Rosenfeld Co. v. Gleed, 110 Kan. 75 , 202 Pac. 611 ; Rowan v. Rosenthal, 113 Kan. 604 , 215 Pac. 1008 .) In the case of Prewett v. Sholl, 120 Kan. 158 , 242 Pac. 149 , this court restated the rule which had been many times previously stated, when it said: “In passing upon the demurrer the court was required to view the evidence given in the light most favorable to plaintiff and allow all reasonable inferences in he

1936In ruling on a demurrer to evidence, the court does not pass on conflicting evidence; (Kerr v. Kerr, 85 Kan. 460 , 116 Pac. 880 ; Hyland v. Railway Co., 96 Kan. 432, 151 Pac. 1107 ; Rosenfeld Co. v. Gleed, 110 Kan. 75 , 202 Pac. 611 ; Rowan v. Rosenthal, 113 Kan. 604 , 215 Pac. 1008 .) In the case of Prewett v. Sholl, 120 Kan. 158 , 242 Pac. 149 , this court restated the rule which had been many times previously stated, when it said: “In passing upon the demurrer the court was required to view the evidence given in the light most favorable to plaintiff and allow all reasonable inferences in he

1936In ruling on a demurrer to evidence, the court does not pass on conflicting evidence; (Kerr v. Kerr, 85 Kan. 460 , 116 Pac. 880 ; Hyland v. Railway Co., 96 Kan. 432, 151 Pac. 1107 ; Rosenfeld Co. v. Gleed, 110 Kan. 75 , 202 Pac. 611 ; Rowan v. Rosenthal, 113 Kan. 604 , 215 Pac. 1008 .) In the case of Prewett v. Sholl, 120 Kan. 158 , 242 Pac. 149 , this court restated the rule which had been many times previously stated, when it said: “In passing upon the demurrer the court was required to view the evidence given in the light most favorable to plaintiff and allow all reasonable inferences in he

1936In ruling on a demurrer to evidence, the court does not pass on conflicting evidence; (Kerr v. Kerr, 85 Kan. 460 , 116 Pac. 880 ; Hyland v. Railway Co., 96 Kan. 432, 151 Pac. 1107 ; Rosenfeld Co. v. Gleed, 110 Kan. 75 , 202 Pac. 611 ; Rowan v. Rosenthal, 113 Kan. 604 , 215 Pac. 1008 .) In the case of Prewett v. Sholl, 120 Kan. 158 , 242 Pac. 149 , this court restated the rule which had been many times previously stated, when it said: “In passing upon the demurrer the court was required to view the evidence given in the light most favorable to plaintiff and allow all reasonable inferences in he

1936In ruling on a demurrer to evidence, the court does not pass on conflicting evidence; (Kerr v. Kerr, 85 Kan. 460 , 116 Pac. 880 ; Hyland v. Railway Co., 96 Kan. 432, 151 Pac. 1107 ; Rosenfeld Co. v. Gleed, 110 Kan. 75 , 202 Pac. 611 ; Rowan v. Rosenthal, 113 Kan. 604 , 215 Pac. 1008 .) In the case of Prewett v. Sholl, 120 Kan. 158 , 242 Pac. 149 , this court restated the rule which had been many times previously stated, when it said: “In passing upon the demurrer the court was required to view the evidence given in the light most favorable to plaintiff and allow all reasonable inferences in he

1936In ruling on a demurrer to evidence, the court does not pass on conflicting evidence; (Kerr v. Kerr, 85 Kan. 460 , 116 Pac. 880 ; Hyland v. Railway Co., 96 Kan. 432, 151 Pac. 1107 ; Rosenfeld Co. v. Gleed, 110 Kan. 75 , 202 Pac. 611 ; Rowan v. Rosenthal, 113 Kan. 604 , 215 Pac. 1008 .) In the case of Prewett v. Sholl, 120 Kan. 158 , 242 Pac. 149 , this court restated the rule which had been many times previously stated, when it said: “In passing upon the demurrer the court was required to view the evidence given in the light most favorable to plaintiff and allow all reasonable inferences in he

1936In ruling on a demurrer to evidence, the court does not pass on conflicting evidence; (Kerr v. Kerr, 85 Kan. 460 , 116 Pac. 880 ; Hyland v. Railway Co., 96 Kan. 432, 151 Pac. 1107 ; Rosenfeld Co. v. Gleed, 110 Kan. 75 , 202 Pac. 611 ; Rowan v. Rosenthal, 113 Kan. 604 , 215 Pac. 1008 .) In the case of Prewett v. Sholl, 120 Kan. 158 , 242 Pac. 149 , this court restated the rule which had been many times previously stated, when it said: “In passing upon the demurrer the court was required to view the evidence given in the light most favorable to plaintiff and allow all reasonable inferences in he

1936In ruling on a demurrer to evidence, the court does not pass on conflicting evidence; (Kerr v. Kerr, 85 Kan. 460 , 116 Pac. 880 ; Hyland v. Railway Co., 96 Kan. 432, 151 Pac. 1107 ; Rosenfeld Co. v. Gleed, 110 Kan. 75 , 202 Pac. 611 ; Rowan v. Rosenthal, 113 Kan. 604 , 215 Pac. 1008 .) In the case of Prewett v. Sholl, 120 Kan. 158 , 242 Pac. 149 , this court restated the rule which had been many times previously stated, when it said: “In passing upon the demurrer the court was required to view the evidence given in the light most favorable to plaintiff and allow all reasonable inferences in he

1936In ruling on a demurrer to evidence, the court does not pass on conflicting evidence; (Kerr v. Kerr, 85 Kan. 460 , 116 Pac. 880 ; Hyland v. Railway Co., 96 Kan. 432, 151 Pac. 1107 ; Rosenfeld Co. v. Gleed, 110 Kan. 75 , 202 Pac. 611 ; Rowan v. Rosenthal, 113 Kan. 604 , 215 Pac. 1008 .) In the case of Prewett v. Sholl, 120 Kan. 158 , 242 Pac. 149 , this court restated the rule which had been many times previously stated, when it said: “In passing upon the demurrer the court was required to view the evidence given in the light most favorable to plaintiff and allow all reasonable inferences in he