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 1977–2021 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 |
|---|---|---|
| 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 |
|---|---|---|
Doyle v. Ohio
green
2 sentences2020Relying on Doyle v. Ohio, 426 U.S. 610 , 96 S. Ct. 2240 , 25 49 L. Ed. 2d 91 (1976), Mulally argues that the State committed reversible error by calling attention to her refusal of the blood draw and using that refusal as evidence of her guilt. 2020Relying on Doyle v. Ohio, 426 U.S. 610 , 96 S. Ct. 2240 , 25 49 L. Ed. 2d 91 (1976), Mulally argues that the State committed reversible error by calling attention to her refusal of the blood draw and using that refusal as evidence of her guilt. | 3 | 2007–2020 |
State v. Zamora
green
2 sentences2021He relies on State v. Zamora, 247 Kan. 684, 692-93 , 803 P.2d 568 (1990), where our Supreme Court limited its holding to the specific facts of the case and determined the district court did not abuse its discretion by not allowing defense counsel to continue its voir dire questions about evidence of "unusual sexual practices." In Simmons, our Supreme Court held the State committed reversible error when it questioned the jury panel about Stockholm Syndrome. 2021He relies on State v. Zamora, 247 Kan. 684, 692-93 , 803 P.2d 568 (1990), where our Supreme Court limited its holding to the specific facts of the case and determined the district court did not abuse its discretion by not allowing defense counsel to continue its voir dire questions about evidence of "unusual sexual practices." In Simmons, our Supreme Court held the State committed reversible error when it questioned the jury panel about Stockholm Syndrome. | 1 | 2021–2021 |
State v. Pribble
green
2 sentences2021Freeman argues the State committed reversible error by asking the jury panel about specific facts in the case during voir dire. 11 The prosecutor's challenged comments must not be considered in isolation but "'in the context in which they were made.'" State v. Davis, 306 Kan. 400 , 413, 394 P.3d 817 (2017). 2021Freeman argues the State committed reversible error by asking the jury panel about specific facts in the case during voir dire. 11 The prosecutor's challenged comments must not be considered in isolation but "'in the context in which they were made.'" State v. Davis, 306 Kan. 400 , 413, 394 P.3d 817 (2017). | 1 | 2021–2021 |
State v. Jones
green
2 sentences1977(State v. Jones, 222 Kan. 56 , 563 P.2d 1021 .) Finally, defendant alleges the state committed reversible error during closing remarks. 1977(State v. Jones, 222 Kan. 56 , 563 P.2d 1021 .) Finally, defendant alleges the state committed reversible error during closing remarks. | 1 | 1977–1977 |
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.