5 Kansas opinions name it 2 courts 1975–2007 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 |
|---|---|---|
Continental Builders, Inc. v. Leachgreen1 sentence1983See Continental Builders, Inc. v. Leach, 5 Kan. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Kansas. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Lehr v. Robertson
green
2 sentences2007In support of this determination, the majority essentially reiterates the often-stated principle that “ignorance of the law is no excuse,” and cites three cases in support of its application of this principle to the facts here: Lehr v. Robertson, 463 U.S. 248, 264 , 77 L. 2007In support of this determination, the majority essentially reiterates the often-stated principle that “ignorance of the law is no excuse,” and cites three cases in support of its application of this principle to the facts here: Lehr v. Robertson, 463 U.S. 248, 264 , 77 L. | 1 | 2007–2007 |
State v. Ciniglio
green
1 sentence1991The court stated that it did not approve of noncompliance with the writing requirement, but “[s]o long as defendant knowingly and understandingly participated in the oral agreement to go ahead with 11 jurors, he has no standing to now claim that such arrangement is not binding on him because it was not in writing.” 57 N.J. | 1 | 1991–1991 |
State v. Reed
green
2 sentences1983This court has held in the past that an orally requested instruction may not be considered on appeal since it does not meet the writing requirement of K.S.A. 22-3414(3), which states: “At the close of the evidence or at such earlier time during the trial as the judge reasonably directs, any party may file written requests that the court instruct the jury on the law as set forth in the requests.” *189 In State v. Reed, 213 Kan. 557, 562 , 516 P.2d 913 (1973), we noted: “There is no statutory provision for an oral request for an instruction. 1983This court has held in the past that an orally requested instruction may not be considered on appeal since it does not meet the writing requirement of K.S.A. 22-3414(3), which states: “At the close of the evidence or at such earlier time during the trial as the judge reasonably directs, any party may file written requests that the court instruct the jury on the law as set forth in the requests.” *189 In State v. Reed, 213 Kan. 557, 562 , 516 P.2d 913 (1973), we noted: “There is no statutory provision for an oral request for an instruction. | 1 | 1983–1983 |
Bailey v. Norton
green
2 sentences1975In support of its position C. & W. relies on cases typified by Bailey v. Norton, 178 Kan. 104 , 283 P. 2d 400 . 1975In support of its position C. & W. relies on cases typified by Bailey v. Norton, 178 Kan. 104 , 283 P. 2d 400 . | 1 | 1975–1975 |
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.