three nonexclusive factors (Kansas) · Go Syfert
← Kansas issues

three nonexclusive factors in Kansas

5 Kansas opinions name it 2 courts 2020–2023 4 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.

Followed or applied (0)

CaseFollowedCited
No positive-treatment citations attached to this issue in Kansas.

Distinguished, questioned or overruled (0)

CaseNegativeCited
No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Kansas. Read the followed side critically anyway.

Also cited on this issue (2)

CaseCitedYears
State v. Edgar green
kan · 2006
2 sentences

2023Citing K.S.A. 2018 Supp. 22- 3210(d)(1) and the three nonexclusive factors set forth in State v. Edgar, 281 Kan. 30, 36 , 127 P.3d 986 (2006), the court held Bilbrey failed to show good cause to withdraw his pleas.

2023Citing K.S.A. 2018 Supp. 22- 3210(d)(1) and the three nonexclusive factors set forth in State v. Edgar, 281 Kan. 30, 36 , 127 P.3d 986 (2006), the court held Bilbrey failed to show good cause to withdraw his pleas.

52020–2023
Strickland v. Washington green
scotus · 1984
2 sentences

2020The court stated, "The Edgar factors are, one, whether the defendant was represented by competent counsel, [two] whether the defendant was misled, coerced, mistreated or unfairly taken advantage of and, three, whether the plea was fairly and understandingly made." As to the first Edgar issue, which is the one relevant for this appeal, the court stated: "[To address the first factor,] I considered the two-prong test in Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 , [ 104 S. Ct. 2052 , 80 L.

2020The court stated, "The Edgar factors are, one, whether the defendant was represented by competent counsel, [two] whether the defendant was misled, coerced, mistreated or unfairly taken advantage of and, three, whether the plea was fairly and understandingly made." As to the first Edgar issue, which is the one relevant for this appeal, the court stated: "[To address the first factor,] I considered the two-prong test in Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 , [ 104 S. Ct. 2052 , 80 L.

12020–2020

Statutes the citing opinions construe

KS § K.S.A. § 22-3210 (5)

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.

Where else courts name it

TN 5 (2011–2014) KS 5 (2020–2023)

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.

← Caselaw search · G Cite Topics · Brief Check