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.
10 Kansas opinions name it 2 courts 1974–2026 7 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 |
|---|---|---|
State v. Banksgreen2 sentences2023In other words, while it is impermissible for a case to rely upon the theory that presumption A leads to presumption B leads to presumption C leads to fact D, it is perfectly proper for the State's case to be grounded upon a theory that presumption A, presumption B, and presumption C all separately point to fact D. [Citation omitted.]' Banks, 306 Kan. at 860- 61, 397 P.3d 1195 ." Viewing the record on appeal in a light most favorable to the State, we find that sufficient circumstantial evidence was presented at trial upon which the jury could find Winter to be guilty beyond a reasonable doubt 2022See Banks, 306 Kan. at 861 ("[W]hile it is impermissible for a case to rely upon the theory that presumption A leads to presumption B leads to presumption C leads to fact D, it is perfectly proper for the State's case to be grounded upon a theory that presumption A, presumption B, and presumption C all separately point to fact D."). 31 Finally, the prosecutor's comments about the killings being nonaccidental were proper. | 4 | 7 |
State v. Colsongreen1 sentence2026The Colson court described the difference between multiple circumstances supporting a single inference versus stacking multiple inferences: "[W]hile it is impermissible for a case to rely upon the theory that presumption A leads to presumption B leads to presumption C leads to fact D, it is perfectly proper for the State's case to be grounded upon a theory that presumption A, presumption B, and presumption C all separately point to fact D." 312 Kan. at 750. | 1 | 1 |
Keith Miller v. Walter E. Martingreen1 sentence2014See Miller v. Martin, 481 F.3d 468, 472 (7th Cir. 2007) (after attorney stood mute at sentencing hearing, held “effective abandonment of a defendant at sentencing calls for the application of Cronic”). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Kansas. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Berger v. Hahner, Foreman & Cale, Inc.
green
2 sentences1974Moreover, the demands of the co-employees were an external force over which management had no control or responsibility, and without them, it is speculative whether or not claimant would have encountered any difficulty.” (p. 617.) This leads to an analysis of Berger v. Hahner, Foreman & Cale, Inc., 211 Kan. 541 , 506 P. 2d 1175 . 1974Moreover, the demands of the co-employees were an external force over which management had no control or responsibility, and without them, it is speculative whether or not claimant would have encountered any difficulty.” (p. 617.) This leads to an analysis of Berger v. Hahner, Foreman & Cale, Inc., 211 Kan. 541 , 506 P. 2d 1175 . | 1 | 1974–1974 |
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.