first two factors in Kansas

113 Kansas opinions name it 2 courts 2004–2025 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.

Followed or applied (8)

Case	Followed	Cited
State v. Toshred kan · 2004 · cited in 30 Kansas opinions naming this issue, 2005–2024 2 sentences 2016We then commented that this "analysis requires a particularized harmlessness inquiry utilizing the three factors set out in Jones" and that "in our evaluation of the third of the three harmlessness factors in prosecutorial misconduct cases . . . [w]e must avoid using this factor and the weight of the inculpatory evidence as a default, a shortcut past careful comparison of the often competing influences of the first two factors." Tosh, 278 Kan. at 93, 97 . 2014See Bridges, 297 Kan. at 1012 ; State v. Tosh, 278 Kan. 83, 97 , 91 P.3d 1204 (2004) (“Before the third factor can ever override the first two factors, an appellate court must be able to say that both the K.S.A. 60-261 and the Chapman [v. California, 386 U.S. 18 , 87 S. Ct. 824 , 17 L.	8	30
Chapman v. Californiared scotus · 1967 · cited in 101 Kansas opinions naming this issue, 2005–2024 2 sentences 2024Before the third factor can ever override the first two factors, an appellate court must be able to say that the harmlessness tests of both K.S.A. 60-261 and Chapman v. California, 386 U.S. 18 , 87 S. Ct. 824 , 17 L. 2024Before the third factor can ever override the first two factors, an appellate court must be able to say that the harmlessness tests of both K.S.A. 60-261 and Chapman v. California, 386 U.S. 18 , 87 S. Ct. 824 , 17 L.	4	101
State v. Wardgreen kan · 2011 · cited in 6 Kansas opinions naming this issue, 2011–2015 2 sentences 2015The third factor can override the first two factors only if the State can prove “ ‘beyond a reasonable doubt that the error complained of will not or did not affect the outcome of the trial in light of the entire record, i.e., where there is no reasonable possibility that the error contributed to the verdict.’ ” Armstrong, 299 Kan. at 417 (quoting State v. Ward, 292 Kan. 541 , Syl. ¶ 6, 256 P.3d 801 [2011], cert. denied 132 S. Ct. 1594 [2012]) (recognizing that while the State must prove harmlessness under both statutory and constitutional standards, the outcome turns on the constitutional sta 2015The third factor can override the first two factors only if the State can prove “ ‘beyond a reasonable doubt that the error complained of will not or did not affect the outcome of the trial in light of the entire record, i.e., where there is no reasonable possibility that the error contributed to the verdict.’ ” Armstrong, 299 Kan. at 417 (quoting State v. Ward, 292 Kan. 541 , Syl. ¶ 6, 256 P.3d 801 [2011], cert. denied 132 S. Ct. 1594 [2012]) (recognizing that while the State must prove harmlessness under both statutory and constitutional standards, the outcome turns on the constitutional sta	2	6
State v. Albrightgreen kan · 2007 · cited in 10 Kansas opinions naming this issue, 2007–2011 2 sentences 2011Moreover, the third factor may not override the first two factors unless the harmless error tests of both K.S.A. [2010 Supp.] 60-261 [refusal to grant new trial is not erroneous if party's substantial rights were not affected] and Chapman v. California, 386 U.S. 18 , [22,] 17 L.Ed.2d 705 , 87 S.Ct. 824 [ reh. denied 386 U.S. 987 , 87 S.Ct. 1283 , 18 L.Ed.2d 241 ] (1967) [conclusion beyond a reasonable doubt that the error had little, if any, likelihood of having changed the result of the trial], have been met. [Citations omitted.]' State v. Albright, 283 Kan. at 428 [ 153 P.3d 497 ]." State v. 2010Moreover, the third factor may not override the first two factors unless the harmless error tests of both K.S.A. 60-261 [refusal to grant new trial is inconsistent with substantial justice] and Chapman v. California, 386 U.S. 18 , [22,] 17 L.Ed.2d 705 , 87 S.Ct. 824 reh. denied 386 U.S. 987 [ 87 S.Ct. 1283 , 18 L.Ed.2d 241 ] (1967) [conclusion beyond a reasonable doubt that the error had little, if any, likelihood of having changed the result of the trial], have been met. [Citations omitted.]' Albright, 283 Kan. at 428 [ 153 P.3d 497 ]." McReynolds, 288 Kan. at 323 , 202 P.3d 658 .	1	10
State v. Bridgesgreen kan · 2013 · cited in 4 Kansas opinions naming this issue, 2013–2014 2 sentences 2014See Bridges, 297 Kan. at 1012 ; State v. Tosh, 278 Kan. 83, 97 , 91 P.3d 1204 (2004) (“Before the third factor can ever override the first two factors, an appellate court must be able to say that both the K.S.A. 60-261 and the Chapman [v. California, 386 U.S. 18 , 87 S. Ct. 824 , 17 L. 2014Ed. 2d 705 , reh. denied 386 U.S. 987 (1967), have been met.” State v. Bridges, 297 Kan. 989 , Syl. ¶¶ 14, 15, 306 P.3d 244 (2013).	1	4
State v. Whitegreen kan · 2007 · cited in 3 Kansas opinions naming this issue, 2007–2008 2 sentences 2007Before the third factor can ever override the first two factors, an appellate court must be able to say that the harmlessness tests of both K.S.A. 60-261 (inconsistent with substantial justice) and Chapman v. California, 386 U.S. 18 , [22,] 87 S.Ct. 824 , 17 L.Ed.2d 705 (1967) (conclusion beyond a reasonable doubt that the error had little, if any, likelihood of having changed the results of the trial), 1145 have been met." State v. White, 284 Kan. 333 , Syl. ¶ 2, 161 P.3d 208 (2007). 2007Before the third factor can ever override the first two factors, an appellate court must be able to say that the harmlessness tests of both K.S.A. 60-261 (inconsistent with substantial justice) and Chapman v. California, 386 U.S. 18 , [22,] 87 S.Ct. 824 , 17 L.Ed.2d 705 (1967) (conclusion beyond a reasonable doubt that the error had little, if any, likelihood of having changed the results of the trial), 1145 have been met." State v. White, 284 Kan. 333 , Syl. ¶ 2, 161 P.3d 208 (2007).	1	3
State v. Naputigreen kan · 2011 · cited in 2 Kansas opinions naming this issue, 2011–2012 2 sentences 2012The third factor of the second step of the prosecutorial misconduct test may not override the first two factors unless the State proves “ ‘beyond a reasonable doubt that the error complained of did not affect the outcome of the trial in light of the entire record/ ” State v. Naputi, 293 Kan. 55, 58 , 260 P.3d 86 (2011) (quoting State v. Ward, 292 Kan. 541 , Syl. ¶ 6, 256 P.3d 801 [2011]). 2012The third factor of the second step of the prosecutorial misconduct test may not override the first two factors unless the State proves “ ‘beyond a reasonable doubt that the error complained of did not affect the outcome of the trial in light of the entire record/ ” State v. Naputi, 293 Kan. 55, 58 , 260 P.3d 86 (2011) (quoting State v. Ward, 292 Kan. 541 , Syl. ¶ 6, 256 P.3d 801 [2011]).	1	2
State v. Ortega-Cadelangreen kan · 2008 · cited in 1 Kansas opinions naming this issue, 2009–2009	1	1

Distinguished, questioned or overruled (0)

Case	Negative	Cited
No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Kansas. Read the followed side critically anyway.

Also cited on this issue (31)

Case	Cited	Years
Seymour v. United States green scotus · 1967 2 sentences 2011Turning to the third factor, whether the evidence against the defendant was of such a direct and overwhelming nature that the misconduct would likely have had little weight in the minds of the jurors, in the past we frequently stated the third factor cannot override the first two factors unless we are able to say the harmless error tests of both K.S.A. 60-261 (inconsistent with substantial justice) and Chapman v. California, 386 U.S. 18 , 87 S.Ct. 824 , 17 L.Ed.2d 705 (1967), reh. denied 386 U.S. 987 , 87 S.Ct. 1283 , 18 L.Ed.2d 241 (1967) (conclusion beyond reasonable doubt that the error had 2011Moreover, the third factor may not override the first two factors unless the harmless error tests of both K.S.A. [2010 Supp.] 60-261 [refusal to grant new trial is not erroneous if party's substantial rights were not affected] and Chapman v. California, 386 U.S. 18 , [22,] 17 L.Ed.2d 705 , 87 S.Ct. 824 [ reh. denied 386 U.S. 987 , 87 S.Ct. 1283 , 18 L.Ed.2d 241 ] (1967) [conclusion beyond a reasonable doubt that the error had little, if any, likelihood of having changed the result of the trial], have been met. [Citations omitted.]' State v. Albright, 283 Kan. at 428 [ 153 P.3d 497 ]." State v.	28	2007–2015
State v. McReynolds green kan · 2009 2 sentences 2011Moreover, the third factor may not override the first two factors unless the harmless error tests of both K.S.A. [2010 Supp.] 60-261 [refusal to grant new trial is not erroneous if party's substantial rights were not affected] and Chapman v. California, 386 U.S. 18 , [22,] 17 L.Ed.2d 705 , 87 S.Ct. 824 [ reh. denied 386 U.S. 987 , 87 S.Ct. 1283 , 18 L.Ed.2d 241 ] (1967) [conclusion beyond a reasonable doubt that the error had little, if any, likelihood of having changed the result of the trial], have been met. [Citations omitted.]' State v. Albright, 283 Kan. at 428 [ 153 P.3d 497 ]." State v. 2011Moreover, the third factor may not override the first two factors unless the harmless error tests of both K.S.A. [2010 Supp.] 60-261 [refusal to grant new trial is not erroneous if party's substantial rights were not affected] and Chapman v. California, 386 U.S. 18 , [22,] 17 L.Ed.2d 705 , 87 S.Ct. 824 [ reh. denied 386 U.S. 987 , 87 S.Ct. 1283 , 18 L.Ed.2d 241 ] (1967) [conclusion beyond a reasonable doubt that the error had little, if any, likelihood of having changed the result of the trial], have been met. [Citations omitted.]' State v. Albright, 283 Kan. at 428 [ 153 P.3d 497 ]." State v.	9	2010–2022
State v. Bryant green kan · 2008 2 sentences 2011Before the third factor can ever override the first two factors, an appellate court must be able to say that the harmlessness tests of both K.S.A. 60-261 (inconsistent with substantial justice) and Chapman v. California, 386 U.S. 18 , 87 S.Ct. 824 , 17 L.Ed.2d 705 (1967) (conclusion beyond reasonable doubt that the error had little, if any, likelihood of having changed the results of the trial) have been met." State v. Bryant, 285 Kan. 970 , Syl. ¶ 2, 179 P.3d 1122 (2008). 2011Before the third factor can ever override the first two factors, an appellate court must be able to say that the harmlessness tests of both K.S.A. 60-261 (inconsistent with substantial justice) and Chapman v. California, 386 U.S. 18 , 87 S.Ct. 824 , 17 L.Ed.2d 705 (1967) (conclusion beyond reasonable doubt that the error had little, if any, likelihood of having changed the results of the trial) have been met." State v. Bryant, 285 Kan. 970 , Syl. ¶ 2, 179 P.3d 1122 (2008).	9	2009–2011
State v. Swinney green kan · 2006 2 sentences 2008Moreover, the third factor may not override the first two factors, unless the harmless error tests of both K.S.A. 60-261 [refusal to grant new trial is inconsistent with substantial justice] and Chapman [ v. California ], 386 U.S. 18 , [ 87 S.Ct. 824 , 17 L.Ed.2d 705 , reh. denied 386 U.S. 987 , 87 S.Ct. 1283 , 18 L.Ed.2d 241 (1967) (conclusion beyond a reasonable doubt that the error had little, if any, likelihood of having changed the result of the trial)], have been met. [Citations omitted.]" Swinney, 280 Kan. at 780 , 127 P.3d 261 . 2008Moreover, the third factor may not override the first two factors, unless the harmless error tests of both K.S.A. 60-261 [refusal to grant new trial is inconsistent with substantial justice] and Chapman [ v. California ], 386 U.S. 18 , [ 87 S.Ct. 824 , 17 L.Ed.2d 705 , reh. denied 386 U.S. 987 , 87 S.Ct. 1283 , 18 L.Ed.2d 241 (1967) (conclusion beyond a reasonable doubt that the error had little, if any, likelihood of having changed the result of the trial)], have been met. [Citations omitted.]" Swinney, 280 Kan. at 780 , 127 P.3d 261 .	9	2006–2008
Berger v. New York green scotus · 1967 2 sentences 2011Turning to the third factor, whether the evidence against the defendant was of such a direct and overwhelming nature that the misconduct would likely have had little weight in the minds of the jurors, in the past we frequently stated the third factor cannot override the first two factors unless we are able to say the harmless error tests of both K.S.A. 60-261 (inconsistent with substantial justice) and Chapman v. California, 386 U.S. 18 , 87 S.Ct. 824 , 17 L.Ed.2d 705 (1967), reh. denied 386 U.S. 987 , 87 S.Ct. 1283 , 18 L.Ed.2d 241 (1967) (conclusion beyond reasonable doubt that the error had 2011Moreover, the third factor may not override the first two factors unless the harmless error tests of both K.S.A. [2010 Supp.] 60-261 [refusal to grant new trial is not erroneous if party's substantial rights were not affected] and Chapman v. California, 386 U.S. 18 , [22,] 17 L.Ed.2d 705 , 87 S.Ct. 824 [ reh. denied 386 U.S. 987 , 87 S.Ct. 1283 , 18 L.Ed.2d 241 ] (1967) [conclusion beyond a reasonable doubt that the error had little, if any, likelihood of having changed the result of the trial], have been met. [Citations omitted.]' State v. Albright, 283 Kan. at 428 [ 153 P.3d 497 ]." State v.	8	2007–2011
State v. McCaslin green kan · 2011 2 sentences 2013Ed. 2d 705 , 87 S. Ct. 824 (1967) . . . , have been met.” [Citation omitted.]’ State v. McCaslin, 291 Kan. 697, 715-16 , 245 P.3d 1030 (2011). 2013Ed. 2d 705 , 87 S. Ct. 824 (1967) . . . , have been met.” [Citation omitted.]’ State v. McCaslin, 291 Kan. 697, 715-16 , 245 P.3d 1030 (2011).	5	2011–2013
State v. Richmond green kan · 2009 2 sentences 2011Ed. 2d 705 , 87 S. Ct. 824 (1967) (conclusion beyond reasonable doubt that the error had little, if any, likelihood of having changed the results of tire trial), have been met.’ ” State v. Richmond, 289 Kan. 419, 440 , 212 P.3d 165 (2009) (quoting State v. Bryant, 285 Kan. 970 , Syl. ¶ 2, 179 P.3d 1122 [2008]). 2011Ed. 2d 705 , 87 S. Ct. 824 (1967) (conclusion beyond reasonable doubt that the error had little, if any, likelihood of having changed the results of tire trial), have been met.’ ” State v. Richmond, 289 Kan. 419, 440 , 212 P.3d 165 (2009) (quoting State v. Bryant, 285 Kan. 970 , Syl. ¶ 2, 179 P.3d 1122 [2008]).	4	2010–2011
State v. Simmons green kan · 2011 2 sentences 2016Ed. 2d 705 (1967) (conclusion beyond reasonable doubt that the error had little, if any, likelihood of having changed the results of the trial), have been met.” Simmons, 292 Kan. 406 , Syl. ¶ 2. 2011Ed. 2d 705 , 87 S. Ct. 824 (1967) (conclusion beyond reasonable doubt that the error had little, if any, likelihood of having changed tire result of the trial), have been met.” State v. Simmons, 292 Kan. 406 , Syl. ¶ 2, 254 P.3d 94 (2011).	2	2011–2016
State v. Armstrong green kan · 2014 2 sentences 2015The third factor can override the first two factors only if the State can prove “ ‘beyond a reasonable doubt that the error complained of will not or did not affect the outcome of the trial in light of the entire record, i.e., where there is no reasonable possibility that the error contributed to the verdict.’ ” Armstrong, 299 Kan. at 417 (quoting State v. Ward, 292 Kan. 541 , Syl. ¶ 6, 256 P.3d 801 [2011], cert. denied 132 S. Ct. 1594 [2012]) (recognizing that while the State must prove harmlessness under both statutory and constitutional standards, the outcome turns on the constitutional sta 2015No single factor is controlling, but the third factor can override the first two factors only if “ ‘die party benefitting from the error proves beyond a reasonable doubt that the error complained of will not or did not affect the outcome of the trial in light of the entire record, i.e., where there is no reasonable possibility that the error contributed to the verdict.’ ” Armstrong, 299 Kan. at 417 (quoting State v. Ward, 292 Kan. 541 , Syl. ¶ 6, 256 P.3d 801 [2011], cert. denied 132 S. Ct. 1594 [2012]) (noting application of both statutory and constitutional harmlessness analysis under Chapma	2	2015–2015
Bingham v. United States green scotus · 2012 2 sentences 2015The third factor can override the first two factors only if the State can prove “ ‘beyond a reasonable doubt that the error complained of will not or did not affect the outcome of the trial in light of the entire record, i.e., where there is no reasonable possibility that the error contributed to the verdict.’ ” Armstrong, 299 Kan. at 417 (quoting State v. Ward, 292 Kan. 541 , Syl. ¶ 6, 256 P.3d 801 [2011], cert. denied 132 S. Ct. 1594 [2012]) (recognizing that while the State must prove harmlessness under both statutory and constitutional standards, the outcome turns on the constitutional sta 2015No single factor is controlling, but the third factor can override the first two factors only if “ ‘die party benefitting from the error proves beyond a reasonable doubt that the error complained of will not or did not affect the outcome of the trial in light of the entire record, i.e., where there is no reasonable possibility that the error contributed to the verdict.’ ” Armstrong, 299 Kan. at 417 (quoting State v. Ward, 292 Kan. 541 , Syl. ¶ 6, 256 P.3d 801 [2011], cert. denied 132 S. Ct. 1594 [2012]) (noting application of both statutory and constitutional harmlessness analysis under Chapma	2	2015–2015
State v. Adams green kan · 2011 2 sentences 2012See, e.g., Ward, 292 Kan. at 549 ; State v. Adams, 292 Kan. 60, 66-67 , 253 P.3d 5 (2011); State v. Tosh, 278 Kan. 83, 93 , 91 P.3d 1204 (2004). 2012See, e.g., Ward, 292 Kan. at 549 ; State v. Adams, 292 Kan. 60, 66-67 , 253 P.3d 5 (2011); State v. Tosh, 278 Kan. 83, 93 , 91 P.3d 1204 (2004).	2	2011–2012
State v. Scott green kan · 2008 2 sentences 2011Ed. 2d 705 (1967), harmlessness tests have been met.” State v. Scott, 286 Kan. 54 , Syl. ¶¶ 17-18, 183 P.3d 801 (2008). 2011Ed. 2d 705 (1967), harmlessness tests have been met.” State v. Scott, 286 Kan. 54 , Syl. ¶¶ 17-18, 183 P.3d 801 (2008).	2	2009–2011
State v. Hunt green kan · 2008 2 sentences 2010State v. McRey- 836 nolds, 288 Kan. 318, 323 , 202 P.3d 658 (2009); Hunt, 285 Kan. at 872 . 2009State v. Hunt, 285 Kan. 855, 871-72 , 176 P.3d 183 (2008). 1117 In the present case, the district court held a hearing on the issues raised in Shadden’s motion in limine.	2	2009–2010
State v. Donesay green kan · 1998 2 sentences 2008We also regard the prosecutorial misconduct case as an appropriate one for application of the dual standard discussed in [State v.] Donesay, 265 Kan. [60,] 88[, 959 P.2d 862 (1998)]. 2008We also regard the prosecutorial misconduct case as an appropriate one for application of the dual standard discussed in [ State v.] Donesay , 265 Kan. [60,] 88[, 959 P.2d 862 (1998)].	2	2004–2008
State v. Betts green kan · 2022 1 sentence 2025State v. Betts, 316 Kan. 191 , 197, 514 P.3d 341 (2022) (statutory interpretation presents a question of law over which appellate courts have unlimited review). 13 With that background, we begin with a review of the evidence used to support the AG's motion for injunctive relief, particularly the first two factors: (1) the probability of irreparable injury to the State if the injunction is not granted and (2) a substantial likelihood the State will eventually prevail on the merits of its mandamus action.	1	2025–2025
State v. Akins green kan · 2014 1 sentence 2015Ed. 2d 705 (1967), have been met.” Akins, 298 Kan. 592 , Syl. ¶ 2.	1	2015–2015
State v. Dull green kan · 2014 1 sentence 2014Ed. 2d 705 , reh. denied 386 U.S. 987 (1967), have been met.’ State v. Bridges, 297 Kan. 989 , Syl. ¶ ¶ 14, 15, 306 P.3d 244 (2013).” Dull, 298 Kan. at 836 .	1	2014–2014
State v. Inkelaar green kan · 2011 1 sentence 2012Inkelaar, 293 Kan. at 431 .	1	2012–2012
State v. Martinez green kan · 2010 1 sentence 2012Ed. 2d 705 , 87 S. Ct. 824 , reh. denied 386 U.S. 987 (1967) ..., have been met. [Citations omitted.]” Martinez, 290 Kan. at 1012 .	1	2012–2012
State v. Hall green kan · 2011 2 sentences 2011See State v. Naputi, 293 Kan. ___ , ___, 260 P.3d 86 (2011); State v. Hall, 292 Kan. 841 , Syl. 95 ¶¶ 14, 15, 257 P.3d 272 (2011); State v. Hernandez, 292 Kan. 598, 603-04 , 257 P.3d 767 (2011) State v. Stieben, 292 Kan. 533, 539 , 256 P.3d 796 (2011);. 2011See State v. Naputi, 293 Kan. ___ , ___, 260 P.3d 86 (2011); State v. Hall, 292 Kan. 841 , Syl. 95 ¶¶ 14, 15, 257 P.3d 272 (2011); State v. Hernandez, 292 Kan. 598, 603-04 , 257 P.3d 767 (2011) State v. Stieben, 292 Kan. 533, 539 , 256 P.3d 796 (2011);.	1	2011–2011
State v. Hernandez green kan · 2011 2 sentences 2011See State v. Naputi, 293 Kan. ___ , ___, 260 P.3d 86 (2011); State v. Hall, 292 Kan. 841 , Syl. 95 ¶¶ 14, 15, 257 P.3d 272 (2011); State v. Hernandez, 292 Kan. 598, 603-04 , 257 P.3d 767 (2011) State v. Stieben, 292 Kan. 533, 539 , 256 P.3d 796 (2011);. 2011See State v. Naputi, 293 Kan. ___ , ___, 260 P.3d 86 (2011); State v. Hall, 292 Kan. 841 , Syl. 95 ¶¶ 14, 15, 257 P.3d 272 (2011); State v. Hernandez, 292 Kan. 598, 603-04 , 257 P.3d 767 (2011) State v. Stieben, 292 Kan. 533, 539 , 256 P.3d 796 (2011);.	1	2011–2011
State v. Stieben green kan · 2011 2 sentences 2011See State v. Naputi, 293 Kan. ___ , ___, 260 P.3d 86 (2011); State v. Hall, 292 Kan. 841 , Syl. 95 ¶¶ 14, 15, 257 P.3d 272 (2011); State v. Hernandez, 292 Kan. 598, 603-04 , 257 P.3d 767 (2011) State v. Stieben, 292 Kan. 533, 539 , 256 P.3d 796 (2011);. 2011See State v. Naputi, 293 Kan. ___ , ___, 260 P.3d 86 (2011); State v. Hall, 292 Kan. 841 , Syl. 95 ¶¶ 14, 15, 257 P.3d 272 (2011); State v. Hernandez, 292 Kan. 598, 603-04 , 257 P.3d 767 (2011) State v. Stieben, 292 Kan. 533, 539 , 256 P.3d 796 (2011);.	1	2011–2011
State v. Murray green kan · 2008	1	2010–2010
State v. Whitaker green kan · 1994 2 sentences 2010"When a defendant claims that a prosecutor committed reversible misconduct, the prejudicial nature of alleged errors is analyzed in the context of the trial record as a whole." State v. Murray, 285 Kan. 503, 511 , 174 P.3d 407 (2008) (citing State v. Whitaker, 255 Kan. 118, 134 , 872 P.2d 278 [1994]). 2010"When a defendant claims that a prosecutor committed reversible misconduct, the prejudicial nature of alleged errors is analyzed in the context of the trial record as a whole." State v. Murray, 285 Kan. 503, 511 , 174 P.3d 407 (2008) (citing State v. Whitaker, 255 Kan. 118, 134 , 872 P.2d 278 [1994]).	1	2010–2010
Landmark National Bank v. Kesler green kan · 2009	1	2010–2010
State v. Decker green kan · 2009	1	2010–2010
State v. Warledo green kan · 2008	1	2009–2009
State v. Carter green kan · 2007	1	2008–2008
State v. Kessler green kan · 2003	1	2008–2008
State v. Dixon green kan · 2005	1	2006–2006
State v. Elnicki green kan · 2005	1	2005–2005

Statutes the citing opinions construe

KS § K.S.A. § 60-261 (101) KS § K.S.A. § 60-404 (27) KS § K.S.A. § 60-455 (27) KS § K.S.A. § 21-3401 (26) KS § K.S.A. § 22-3601 (25) KS § K.S.A. § 60-401 (19) KS § K.S.A. § 21-3502 (14) KS § K.S.A. § 60-460 (14) KS § K.S.A. § 60-445 (13) KS § K.S.A. § 21-3504 (12) KS § K.S.A. § 60-447 (11) KS § K.S.A. § 21-4643 (10)

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.

Where else courts name it

KS 113 (2004–2025) IL 82 (1981–2026) TX 77 (1972–2025) CA 65 (1980–2026) NM 40 (1988–2025) WA 38 (1973–2026) NY 26 (1979–2025) PA 26 (1973–2025) MI 20 (1987–2025) OH 19 (1981–2025) OR 18 (1981–2025) WI 16 (1975–2025) NJ 15 (1986–2025) UT 14 (1993–2022) GA 14 (2002–2026) FL 12 (1936–2015) MS 12 (1991–2022) MN 11 (1986–2016) IA 11 (1996–2024) NV 10 (2017–2022) MD 9 (1979–2025) IN 9 (1992–2019) MA 8 (2001–2026) MO 8 (1989–2023) AZ 8 (2006–2025) AL 6 (2005–2015) MT 6 (1999–2026) NC 6 (1998–2024) CT 6 (1995–2012) LA 6 (1996–2026) WY 5 (1992–2025) HI 5 (2009–2026) ND 5 (2004–2019) TN 5 (1999–2016) NH 5 (2006–2022) WV 4 (2005–2020) VT 4 (2009–2025) VA 4 (2005–2022) CO 3 (1997–2021) SD 3 (1999–2025) DE 3 (2018–2023) NE 3 (1998–2021) SC 2 (2025–2025) DC 2 (1997–2009) ID 2 (2020–2025)

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.

← Caselaw search · G Cite Topics · Brief Check