19 Kansas opinions name it 2 courts 1998–2025 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.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
Kumho Tire Co. v. Carmichaelgreen2 sentences2020As we recognized in Cone, "Daubert emphasized that these factors were not exclusive and that the trial court's overarching inquiry should be the scientific validity, evidentiary relevance, and reliability of the evidence. 509 U.S. at 593-95 ; see also Kumho Tire Co. v. Carmichael, 526 U.S. 137, 147, 149-50 , 119 S. Ct. 1167 , 143 L. 2020As we recognized in Cone, "Daubert emphasized that these factors were not exclusive and that the trial court's overarching inquiry should be the scientific validity, evidentiary relevance, and reliability of the evidence. 509 U.S. at 593-95 ; see also Kumho Tire Co. v. Carmichael, 526 U.S. 137, 147, 149-50 , 119 S. Ct. 1167 , 143 L. | 2 | 2 |
In Re the Marriage of Hairgreen1 sentence2022See In re Marriage of Hair, 40 Kan. | 1 | 1 |
James Bellino v. Schlumberger Technologies, Inc.green1 sentence2016Anstett v. Eagle-Picher Industries, Inc., 203 F.3d 501, 503, 506 (7th Cir. 2000) (court recognizes action for severance benefits under ERISA plan functionally presents "a claim to enforce a contract," so the plan language controls); Weir v. Federal Asset Disposition Ass'n, 123 F.3d 281, 287 (5th Cir. 1997) (There is "'no hard and fast rule that an individual must suffer a period of unemployment to qualify for severance benefits under ERISA[;]'" rather, those courts denying benefits "'have predicated their decisions on the particular terms of the ERISA plan at issue[.]'") (quoting Bellino v. Sc | 1 | 1 |
Weir v. Fadagreen1 sentence2016Anstett v. Eagle-Picher Industries, Inc., 203 F.3d 501, 503, 506 (7th Cir. 2000) (court recognizes action for severance benefits under ERISA plan functionally presents "a claim to enforce a contract," so the plan language controls); Weir v. Federal Asset Disposition Ass'n, 123 F.3d 281, 287 (5th Cir. 1997) (There is "'no hard and fast rule that an individual must suffer a period of unemployment to qualify for severance benefits under ERISA[;]'" rather, those courts denying benefits "'have predicated their decisions on the particular terms of the ERISA plan at issue[.]'") (quoting Bellino v. Sc | 1 | 1 |
Carol Anstett, Kimberly K. Armstrong, William A. Bauer v. Eagle-Picher Industries, Inc.green2 sentences2016Anstett v. Eagle-Picher Industries, Inc., 203 F.3d 501, 503, 506 (7th Cir. 2000) (court recognizes action for severance benefits under ERISA plan functionally presents “a claim to enforce a contract,” so the plan language controls); Weirv. 2016Anstett v. Eagle-Picher Industries, Inc., 203 F.3d 501, 503, 506 (7th Cir. 2000) (court recognizes action for severance benefits under ERISA plan functionally presents "a claim to enforce a contract," so the plan language controls); Weir v. Federal Asset Disposition Ass'n, 123 F.3d 281, 287 (5th Cir. 1997) (There is "'no hard and fast rule that an individual must suffer a period of unemployment to qualify for severance benefits under ERISA[;]'" rather, those courts denying benefits "'have predicated their decisions on the particular terms of the ERISA plan at issue[.]'") (quoting Bellino v. Sc | 1 | 1 |
State v. Taylorgreen1 sentence1998See State v. Taylor, 262 Kan. 471 , Syl. ¶ 5; State v. Le, 260 Kan. 845 , Syl, ¶ 4, 926 P.2d 638 (1996). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Kansas. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
State v. Schoonover
green
2 sentences2024In determining whether a situation presents a double jeopardy issue, the overarching inquiry is whether the convictions are for the same offense. 281 Kan. at 496 . 2023Schoonover, 281 Kan. at 462 . 6 When analyzing claims of multiplicity, "the overarching inquiry is whether the convictions are for the same offense. | 10 | 2006–2024 |
Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc.
green
2 sentences2020As we recognized in Cone, "Daubert emphasized that these factors were not exclusive and that the trial court's overarching inquiry should be the scientific validity, evidentiary relevance, and reliability of the evidence. 509 U.S. at 593-95 ; see also Kumho Tire Co. v. Carmichael, 526 U.S. 137, 147, 149-50 , 119 S. Ct. 1167 , 143 L. 2019Daubert emphasized that these factors were not exclusive and that the trial court's overarching inquiry should be the scientific validity, evidentiary relevance, *50 and reliability of the evidence. 509 U.S. at 593 -95 , 113 S.Ct. 2786 ; see also Kumho Tire Co. v. Carmichael , 526 U.S. 137 , 147, 149-50, 119 S.Ct. 1167 , 143 L.Ed.2d 238 (1999) (trial judge's gatekeeping function applies to all expert testimony, not just scientific testimony, and a court may consider the Daubert factors when deciding admissibility). | 2 | 2019–2020 |
State v. Holley
green
1 sentence2025Although he addresses these as three separate issues, we will combine them and address them collectively as the same overarching standard of review and general legal principles apply to each claim: • The district court improperly instructed the jury on jurisdictional principles applicable to his conduct on either side of the state line; • The district court failed to instruct the jury on all the necessary elements of aggravated kidnapping; and • The district court erred by failing to instruct the jury on attempted aggravated robbery as a lesser included offense of aggravated robbery. "'When an | 1 | 2025–2025 |
Simmons v. Porter
green
2 sentences2020Jackson v. City of Kansas City, 235 Kan. 278, 286 , 680 P.2d 877 (1984) (KTCA creates a "general rule of governmental liability" subject to exceptions that are to be given a "strict or narrow interpretation."), overruled on other grounds by Simmons v. Porter, 298 Kan. 299 , 312 P.3d 345 (2013); Estate of Belden v. Brown County, 46 Kan. 2020Jackson v. City of Kansas City, 235 Kan. 278, 286 , 680 P.2d 877 (1984) (KTCA creates a "general rule of governmental liability" subject to exceptions that are to be given a "strict or narrow interpretation."), overruled on other grounds by Simmons v. Porter, 298 Kan. 299 , 312 P.3d 345 (2013); Estate of Belden v. Brown County, 46 Kan. | 1 | 2020–2020 |
State v. King
green
2 sentences2020There are two components to this inquiry, both of which must be met for there to be a double jeopardy violation: (1) Do the convictions arise from the same conduct? and (2) By statutory definition are there two offenses or only one?' [Citation omitted.]" State v. King, 297 Kan. 955, 970 , 305 P.3d 641 (2013). 2020There are two components to this inquiry, both of which must be met for there to be a double jeopardy violation: (1) Do the convictions arise from the same conduct? and (2) By statutory definition are there two offenses or only one?' [Citation omitted.]" State v. King, 297 Kan. 955, 970 , 305 P.3d 641 (2013). | 1 | 2020–2020 |
Jackson v. City of Kansas City
green
2 sentences2020Jackson v. City of Kansas City, 235 Kan. 278, 286 , 680 P.2d 877 (1984) (KTCA creates a "general rule of governmental liability" subject to exceptions that are to be given a "strict or narrow interpretation."), overruled on other grounds by Simmons v. Porter, 298 Kan. 299 , 312 P.3d 345 (2013); Estate of Belden v. Brown County, 46 Kan. 2020Jackson v. City of Kansas City, 235 Kan. 278, 286 , 680 P.2d 877 (1984) (KTCA creates a "general rule of governmental liability" subject to exceptions that are to be given a "strict or narrow interpretation."), overruled on other grounds by Simmons v. Porter, 298 Kan. 299 , 312 P.3d 345 (2013); Estate of Belden v. Brown County, 46 Kan. | 1 | 2020–2020 |
Estate of Belden v. Brown County
green
1 sentence2020Jackson v. City of Kansas City, 235 Kan. 278, 286 , 680 P.2d 877 (1984) (KTCA creates a "general rule of governmental liability" subject to exceptions that are to be given a "strict or narrow interpretation."), overruled on other grounds by Simmons v. Porter, 298 Kan. 299 , 312 P.3d 345 (2013); Estate of Belden v. Brown County, 46 Kan. | 1 | 2020–2020 |
In re Care & Treatment of Cone
green
1 sentence2020Ed. 2d 238 (1999) (trial judge's gatekeeping 27 function applies to all expert testimony, not just scientific testimony, and a court may consider the Daubert factors when deciding admissibility)." 309 Kan. at 327 . | 1 | 2020–2020 |
State v. McClelland
green
1 sentence2014First and foremost, a driveway in front of a residence is clearly a part of property that is “so inseparable as to be considered a portion thereof.” McClelland, 215 Kan. at 84 . | 1 | 2014–2014 |
State v. Le
green
2 sentences1998See State v. Taylor, 262 Kan. 471 , Syl. ¶ 5; State v. Le, 260 Kan. 845 , Syl, ¶ 4, 926 P.2d 638 (1996). 1998See State v. Taylor, 262 Kan. 471 , Syl. ¶ 5; State v. Le, 260 Kan. 845 , Syl, ¶ 4, 926 P.2d 638 (1996). | 1 | 1998–1998 |
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.