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 1 courts 1914–2004 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. Cathey
green
1 sentence2004What defendant directs the court’s attention to in Cathey is what was wrong with the instruction on flight — “Such an instruction singles out and particularly emphasizes the weight to be given to that evidence by the jury.” 241 Kan. at 731 . | 1 | 2004–2004 |
Northern Natural Gas Co. v. Dwyer
green
2 sentences2003Northern Natural Gas Co. v. Dwyer, 208 Kan. 337, 356 , 492 P.2d 147 (1971). 2003Northern Natural Gas Co. v. Dwyer, 208 Kan. 337, 356 , 492 P.2d 147 (1971). | 1 | 2003–2003 |
Bodine v. City of Overland Park
green
2 sentences1974(Bodine v. City of Overland Park, 198 Kan. 371 , 424 P. 2d 513 ; Creten v. Board of County Commissioners, supra.) What test of reasonableness was contemplated in K. 1974(Bodine v. City of Overland Park, 198 Kan. 371 , 424 P. 2d 513 ; Creten v. Board of County Commissioners, supra.) What test of reasonableness was contemplated in K. | 1 | 1974–1974 |
State v. Holmes
neutral
2 sentences1924(The State v. Holmes, 98 Kan. 174 , 157 Pac. 412 .) There is complaint of the admission in evidence of the option contract between defendant and Gottman. ^ It was admitted for the purpose of showing the intent of the defendant to defraud, and was competent for that purpose. 1924(The State v. Holmes, 98 Kan. 174 , 157 Pac. 412 .) There is complaint of the admission in evidence of the option contract between defendant and Gottman. ^ It was admitted for the purpose of showing the intent of the defendant to defraud, and was competent for that purpose. | 1 | 1924–1924 |
Chisholm v. Georgia
red
1 sentence1914Speaking of the rights of Alabama, the supreme court said in the opinion in the case of Pollard’s Lessee v. Hagan et al., supra: “But her rights of sovereignty and jurisdiction are not governed by the common law of England as it prevailed in the colonies before the Revolution, but as modified by our own institutions.” (p. 229.) In Chisholm v. Georgia, 2 Dallas (2 U. S.), 419, 1 L. | 1 | 1914–1914 |
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.