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 1946–2024 1 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 |
|---|---|---|
United States v. Bautistagreen1 sentence2013Compare State v. Grady, 317 Wis. 2d 344 , 766 N.W.2d 729 (2009) (precustodial Miranda warnings remained effective once encounter became custodial interrogation) with State v. Appleby, 289 Kan. 1017, 1046-47 , 221 P.3d 525 (2009) (Miranda rights cannot be anticipatorily invoked in a context other than custodial interrogation); see also United States v. Bautista, 145 F.3d 1140, 1151 (10th Cir.1998) (law enforcement officers not free to give Miranda warnings and then ignore person’s attempt to invoke any right thereunder because encounter is merely investigatory). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Gradygreen2 sentences2013Compare State v. Grady, 317 Wis. 2d 344 , 766 N.W.2d 729 (2009) (precustodial Miranda warnings remained effective once encounter became custodial interrogation) with State v. Appleby, 289 Kan. 1017, 1046-47 , 221 P.3d 525 (2009) (Miranda rights cannot be anticipatorily invoked in a context other than custodial interrogation); see also United States v. Bautista, 145 F.3d 1140, 1151 (10th Cir.1998) (law enforcement officers not free to give Miranda warnings and then ignore person’s attempt to invoke any right thereunder because encounter is merely investigatory). 2013Compare State v. Grady, 317 Wis. 2d 344 , 766 N.W.2d 729 (2009) (precustodial Miranda warnings remained effective once encounter became custodial interrogation) with State v. Appleby, 289 Kan. 1017, 1046-47 , 221 P.3d 525 (2009) (Miranda rights cannot be anticipatorily invoked in a context other than custodial interrogation); see also United States v. Bautista, 145 F.3d 1140, 1151 (10th Cir.1998) (law enforcement officers not free to give Miranda warnings and then ignore person’s attempt to invoke any right thereunder because encounter is merely investigatory). | 1 | 1 |
In the Matter of Bruntongreen1 sentence2013Compare State v. Grady, 317 Wis. 2d 344 , 766 N.W.2d 729 (2009) (precustodial Miranda warnings remained effective once encounter became custodial interrogation) with State v. Appleby, 289 Kan. 1017, 1046-47 , 221 P.3d 525 (2009) (Miranda rights cannot be anticipatorily invoked in a context other than custodial interrogation); see also United States v. Bautista, 145 F.3d 1140, 1151 (10th Cir.1998) (law enforcement officers not free to give Miranda warnings and then ignore person’s attempt to invoke any right thereunder because encounter is merely investigatory). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Applebygreen1 sentence2013Compare State v. Grady, 317 Wis. 2d 344 , 766 N.W.2d 729 (2009) (precustodial Miranda warnings remained effective once encounter became custodial interrogation) with State v. Appleby, 289 Kan. 1017, 1046-47 , 221 P.3d 525 (2009) (Miranda rights cannot be anticipatorily invoked in a context other than custodial interrogation); see also United States v. Bautista, 145 F.3d 1140, 1151 (10th Cir.1998) (law enforcement officers not free to give Miranda warnings and then ignore person’s attempt to invoke any right thereunder because encounter is merely investigatory). | 1 | 1 |
Robert William Gorman v. United States of America, Edward Terrence Roche v. United Statesgreen1 sentence1971(Gorman v. United States, 380 F. 2d 158, 164 [1st Cir. 1967]; People v. Hill, 39 Ill. 2d 125 , 233 N. E. 2d 367 ; Miller v. United States, 396 F. 2d 492 [8th Cir. 1968]; and United States v. Osterburg, 423 F. 2d 704 [9th Cir. 1970].) The refusal of the appellee to sign a rights waiver form for the Overland Park police officers is not tantamount to an assertion that he did not desire to be questioned on the matter. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Kansas. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Adams v. State
green
1 sentence2024Rather, it was rationally related to the KSGA's goal to achieve consistency and proportionality. 27 Kan. | 1 | 2024–2024 |
State v. Duke
green
2 sentences2007The defendant shall have a right to a hearing, after reasonable notice to be fixed by the court, to be personally present and to have the assistance of counsel in any proceeding for the correction of an illegal sentence.” In State v. Duke, 263 Kan. 193 , 946 P.2d 1375 (1997), this court addressed whether a district court could summarily deny a motion to correct an illegal sentence, in light of the statutory language investing the defendant with the rights to have a hearing, to Be present at the hearing, and to have the assistance of counsel in any illegal sentence-correcting proceeding. 2007The defendant shall have a right to a hearing, after reasonable notice to be fixed by the court, to be personally present and to have the assistance of counsel in any proceeding for the correction of an illegal sentence.” In State v. Duke, 263 Kan. 193 , 946 P.2d 1375 (1997), this court addressed whether a district court could summarily deny a motion to correct an illegal sentence, in light of the statutory language investing the defendant with the rights to have a hearing, to Be present at the hearing, and to have the assistance of counsel in any illegal sentence-correcting proceeding. | 1 | 2007–2007 |
The People v. Hill
green
2 sentences1971(Gorman v. United States, 380 F. 2d 158, 164 [1st Cir. 1967]; People v. Hill, 39 Ill. 2d 125 , 233 N. E. 2d 367 ; Miller v. United States, 396 F. 2d 492 [8th Cir. 1968]; and United States v. Osterburg, 423 F. 2d 704 [9th Cir. 1970].) The refusal of the appellee to sign a rights waiver form for the Overland Park police officers is not tantamount to an assertion that he did not desire to be questioned on the matter. 1971(Gorman v. United States, 380 F. 2d 158, 164 [1st Cir. 1967]; People v. Hill, 39 Ill. 2d 125 , 233 N. E. 2d 367 ; Miller v. United States, 396 F. 2d 492 [8th Cir. 1968]; and United States v. Osterburg, 423 F. 2d 704 [9th Cir. 1970].) The refusal of the appellee to sign a rights waiver form for the Overland Park police officers is not tantamount to an assertion that he did not desire to be questioned on the matter. | 1 | 1971–1971 |
William Lee Miller v. United States
green
1 sentence1971(Gorman v. United States, 380 F. 2d 158, 164 [1st Cir. 1967]; People v. Hill, 39 Ill. 2d 125 , 233 N. E. 2d 367 ; Miller v. United States, 396 F. 2d 492 [8th Cir. 1968]; and United States v. Osterburg, 423 F. 2d 704 [9th Cir. 1970].) The refusal of the appellee to sign a rights waiver form for the Overland Park police officers is not tantamount to an assertion that he did not desire to be questioned on the matter. | 1 | 1971–1971 |
United States v. Herbert Arthur Osterburg
green
1 sentence1971(Gorman v. United States, 380 F. 2d 158, 164 [1st Cir. 1967]; People v. Hill, 39 Ill. 2d 125 , 233 N. E. 2d 367 ; Miller v. United States, 396 F. 2d 492 [8th Cir. 1968]; and United States v. Osterburg, 423 F. 2d 704 [9th Cir. 1970].) The refusal of the appellee to sign a rights waiver form for the Overland Park police officers is not tantamount to an assertion that he did not desire to be questioned on the matter. | 1 | 1971–1971 |
Jenness v. Jenness
neutral
2 sentences1946(Jenness v. Jenness, 112 Kan. 47, 49 , 209 Pac. 822 .) Moreover, if appellees had made further inquiry prior to purchase and if appellants had produced the actual contract under which they claim, would the contract have disclosed the appellant partners possessed the rights they claim? 1946(Jenness v. Jenness, 112 Kan. 47, 49 , 209 Pac. 822 .) Moreover, if appellees had made further inquiry prior to purchase and if appellants had produced the actual contract under which they claim, would the contract have disclosed the appellant partners possessed the rights they claim? | 1 | 1946–1946 |
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.