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 1990–1999 0 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 |
|---|---|---|
| No positive-treatment citations attached to this issue in Kansas. | ||
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Kansas. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
State v. Ortiz
green
2 sentences1999However, in State v. Ortiz, in the interest of fundamental fairness, the Supreme Court recognized an exception to this general rule where a defendant either was not informed of his or her right to appeal, or was not furnished an attorney to perfect an appeal, or was furnished an attorney for that purpose who failed to perfect and complete an appeal. 230 Kan. at 736 . 1999However, in State v. Ortiz , in the interest of fundamental fairness, the Supreme Court recognized an exception to this general rule where a defendant either was not informed of his or her right to appeal, or was not furnished an attorney to perfect an appeal, or was furnished an attorney for that purpose who failed to perfect and complete an appeal. 230 Kan. at 736 . | 4 | 1991–1999 |
Moody v. Board of Shawnee County Comm'rs
green
2 sentences1990Before the Supreme Court recognized the doctrine of overbreadth as a distinct doctrine, some legislation which the court might under its modern view vitiate on that ground was held invalid on the ground of vagueness.” The City argues that, under the analyses in Young v. American Mini Theatres, 427 U.S. 50 , and Moody v. Board of Shawnee County Comm'rs, 237 Kan. 67 , 697 P.2d 1310 (1985), defendant here has no standing to argue the constitutionality of the ordinance as it relates to third parties. 1990Before the Supreme Court recognized the doctrine of overbreadth as a distinct doctrine, some legislation which the court might under its modern view vitiate on that ground was held invalid on the ground of vagueness.” The City argues that, under the analyses in Young v. American Mini Theatres, 427 U.S. 50 , and Moody v. Board of Shawnee County Comm'rs, 237 Kan. 67 , 697 P.2d 1310 (1985), defendant here has no standing to argue the constitutionality of the ordinance as it relates to third parties. | 1 | 1990–1990 |
Young v. American Mini Theatres, Inc.
green
1 sentence1990Before the Supreme Court recognized the doctrine of overbreadth as a distinct doctrine, some legislation which the court might under its modern view vitiate on that ground was held invalid on the ground of vagueness.” The City argues that, under the analyses in Young v. American Mini Theatres, 427 U.S. 50 , and Moody v. Board of Shawnee County Comm'rs, 237 Kan. 67 , 697 P.2d 1310 (1985), defendant here has no standing to argue the constitutionality of the ordinance as it relates to third parties. | 1 | 1990–1990 |
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.