ability test in Kansas

2021And parties who do not timely appeal a decision generally lose the ability to challenge that decision later. 304 Kan. at 919 .

2020Our Supreme Court has noted that "local governments do not have standing to invoke the protection of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution against the actions of state government." Gannon v. State, 298 Kan. 1107, 1133 , 319 P.3d 1196 (2014).

2020Our Supreme Court has noted that "local governments do not have standing to invoke the protection of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution against the actions of state government." Gannon v. State, 298 Kan. 1107, 1133 , 319 P.3d 1196 (2014).

2014Expanding the situations in which a defendant can collaterally attack a prior conviction “provide convicted defendants an incentive to forego a timely appeal or petition for post-conviction review, knowing that they will never lose the ability to challenge the validity of the conviction if, in the future, it is relied upon by the State to enhance a new criminal charge.” Johnson, 38 A.3d at 1278 .

2012Generally, “[i]n determining whether a prima facie showing has been made, the district court is not acting as a factfinder.” Boit v. Gar-Tec Products, Inc., 967 F.2d 671, 675 (1st Cir. 1992); see also Estate of Draper v. Bank of America, 288 Kan. 510, 517 , 205 P.3d 698 (2009) (recognizing general rule that appellate court construes written documents de novo and without regard to district court’s ruling); Cranford v. State, 39 Kan.

2012Furthermore, “[t]rial counsel’s failure to challenge the reliability of the victim’s prior disclosures ... severely hampered the ability to challenge the victim’s testimony at trial.” Mullins, 30 Kan.

2011Wis. 2010) (unpublished opinion) (Brendlin did not hold a passenger’s ability to challenge the constitutionality of a traffic stop extends to the subsequent vehicle search if the passenger does not claim a possessory or property interest in vehicle); People v. Bowles, 226 P.3d 1125, 1129, n.2 (Colo. App. 2009) (Brendlin leaves intact rule that passenger without possessory interest in vehicle lacks standing to challenge vehicle’s search); Atkins v. Com., 57 Va. App. 2, 12 , 698 S.E. 2d 249 (2010) (Brendlin addresses a defendant passenger’s right to challenge the traffic stop, not the right to c

2011Wis. 2010) (unpublished opinion) (Brendlin did not hold a passenger’s ability to challenge the constitutionality of a traffic stop extends to the subsequent vehicle search if the passenger does not claim a possessory or property interest in vehicle); People v. Bowles, 226 P.3d 1125, 1129, n.2 (Colo. App. 2009) (Brendlin leaves intact rule that passenger without possessory interest in vehicle lacks standing to challenge vehicle’s search); Atkins v. Com., 57 Va. App. 2, 12 , 698 S.E. 2d 249 (2010) (Brendlin addresses a defendant passenger’s right to challenge the traffic stop, not the right to c

2008There is no language in the statute that suggests that a claimant loses the ability to claim work disability either because he was laid off for economic reasons or because he lost a bid for reelection. *996 Phillips County also cites to Hernandez v. Monfort, Inc., 30 Kan.

2008App. 2d 309 , 41 P.3d 886 , rev. denied 274 Kan. 1112 (2002).

2003“Currently, ability or capacity to earn wages only becomes a factor when a finding is made that a good faith effort to find appropriate employment has not been made. [Citation omitted.] Once a finding has been made that the claimant has established a good faith effort, the difference in pre-and post-injury wages can be based on the actual wages made. [Citation omitted.]” 29 Kan.

2001In Montanez , we said: “The ultimate test in each case in determining whedier die testimony of a witness who has thwarted cross-examination by invoking his privilege against self-incrimination must be whether die defendant’s inability to malte the inquiry created a substantial danger of prejudice by depriving him of the ability to test die truth of die witness’ direct testimony.” 215 Kan. 67 , Syl. ¶ 4.

2001We noted that a distinction is generally drawn between invoking the privilege as to “direct” matters, as opposed to “collateral” mat *552 ters, where it is not required to strike the direct testimony. 215 Kan. at 70 .

1974Bias, interest or improper motives of a witness may always be shown in order to place his testimony in proper perspective (State v. Pierson, 202 Kan. 297, 301 , 448 P. 2d 30 ).

1974Bias, interest or improper motives of a witness may always be shown in order to place his testimony in proper perspective (State v. Pierson, 202 Kan. 297, 301 , 448 P. 2d 30 ).