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.
16 Kansas opinions name it 2 courts 2006–2026 11 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 |
|---|---|---|
State v. Milesgreen2 sentences2022See State v. Miles, 300 Kan. 1065, 1066 , 337 P.3d 1291 (2014). 2022See State v. Miles, 300 Kan. 1065, 1066 , 337 P.3d 1291 (2014). | 3 | 3 |
State v. Gumforygreen2 sentences2024See, e.g., State v. Gumfory, 281 Kan. 1168, 1170 , 135 P.3d 1191 (2006) ("Judicial discretion is abused when no reasonable person would have taken the position taken by the trial court." Under these circumstances, this court cannot say that the district court's decision was so far afield that no reasonable person could agree that it was appropriate. 5 CONCLUSION The district court granted Littledog dispositional departures and sentenced her to probation in cases 22-CR-416 and 22-CR-704. 2024See, e.g., State v. Gumfory, 281 Kan. 1168, 1170 , 135 P.3d 1191 (2006) ("Judicial discretion is abused when no reasonable person would have taken the position taken by the trial court." Under these circumstances, this court cannot say that the district court's decision was so far afield that no reasonable person could agree that it was appropriate. 5 CONCLUSION The district court granted Littledog dispositional departures and sentenced her to probation in cases 22-CR-416 and 22-CR-704. | 1 | 1 |
State v. Arnettgreen2 sentences2021See State v. Arnett, 307 Kan. 648, 650 , 413 P.3d 787 (2018) (an issue not briefed is considered waived or abandoned). 2021See State v. Arnett, 307 Kan. 648, 650 , 413 P.3d 787 (2018) (an issue not briefed is considered waived or abandoned). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Jollygreen2 sentences2020See 301 Kan. at 324 . 7 When a defendant does not contend the district court made an error of law or fact, the appellate court's standard of review is whether no reasonable person would have agreed with the judge's decision in light of the factors found by the judge. 2020State v. Florentin, 297 Kan. 594, 599 , 303 P.3d 263 (2013), disapproved of on other grounds by Jolly, 301 Kan. at 313 . | 1 | 1 |
Williams v. United Statesgreen1 sentence2006The court concluded: “Because we believe that Craig , not Crawford , is controlling, we find that the district court made an error of law, and therefore committed an abuse of discretion, when it held that Crawford prevented a child from testifying via closed circuit television.” 131 P.3d at 237-38 ; see also Williams v. United States, 859 A.2d 130 (D.C. 2004) (taking 5-year-old victim’s testimony via closed-circuit television was warranted); Ahmed v. United States, 856 A.2d 560 (D.C. 2004) (defendant’s confrontation rights were not violated when the trial court allowed child victim to testify | 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. Huntley
green
2 sentences2019The panel concluded the district court made an error of law based on the district court's legal conclusion that any defense expert testimony would be inadmissible. 39 Kan. 2019The panel concluded the district court made an error of law based on the district court's legal conclusion that any defense expert testimony would be inadmissible. 39 Kan. | 2 | 2019–2019 |
State v. Weekes
green
1 sentence2026Once a probation violation has been established, the district court can impose the original underlying sentences "or any lesser sentence." K.S.A. 22-3716(c)(1)(C); State v. Weekes, 308 Kan. 1245 , 1247-48, 427 P.3d 861 (2018). | 1 | 2026–2026 |
State v. Gonzalez
green
2 sentences2026State v. Gonzalez, 290 Kan. 747, 755 , 234 P.3d 1 (2010). 2026State v. Gonzalez, 290 Kan. 747, 755 , 234 P.3d 1 (2010). | 1 | 2026–2026 |
State v. Poulos
green
2 sentences2024Morris also argues the district court made an error of fact and law when it found H.R. could not tell the difference between a truth and a lie because "it has been longstanding law in this state that '[t]he witness' capacity to perceive or remember are for the fact find[ers]—the jury—to consider in weighing the credibility of [the] testimony, but they are not bases of exclusion.'" State v. Poulos, 196 Kan. 253, 264 , 411 P.2d 694 (1966). 2024Morris also argues the district court made an error of fact and law when it found H.R. could not tell the difference between a truth and a lie because "it has been longstanding law in this state that '[t]he witness' capacity to perceive or remember are for the fact find[ers]—the jury—to consider in weighing the credibility of [the] testimony, but they are not bases of exclusion.'" State v. Poulos, 196 Kan. 253, 264 , 411 P.2d 694 (1966). | 1 | 2024–2024 |
State v. Kuone
green
1 sentence2024The Kansas Supreme Court in Kuone delineated four factors for courts to consider when determining unavailability to testify under K.S.A. 60- 460(dd). 243 Kan. 218 , Syl. ¶ 2. | 1 | 2024–2024 |
Geders v. United States
green
2 sentences2023Blackmon supports his argument by citing to Geders v. United States, 425 U.S. 80 , 96 S. Ct. 1330 , 47 L. 2023Blackmon supports his argument by citing to Geders v. United States, 425 U.S. 80 , 96 S. Ct. 1330 , 47 L. | 1 | 2023–2023 |
State v. Brown
green
1 sentence2022App. 2d 876, 879-80 , 357 P.3d 296 (2015). 3 Here, the district court made no error of law or fact. | 1 | 2022–2022 |
Fouts v. Armstrong Commercial Laundry Distributing Co.
green
2 sentences2021Woodmont does not argue the district court made an error of law or fact but contends the district court abused its discretion because it acted "arbitrarily and capriciously," the standard expressed in Fouts v. Armstrong Commercial Laundry Distributing Co., 209 Kan. 59, 65 , 495 P.2d 1390 (1972). 2021Woodmont does not argue the district court made an error of law or fact but contends the district court abused its discretion because it acted "arbitrarily and capriciously," the standard expressed in Fouts v. Armstrong Commercial Laundry Distributing Co., 209 Kan. 59, 65 , 495 P.2d 1390 (1972). | 1 | 2021–2021 |
State v. Florentin
green
2 sentences2020State v. Florentin, 297 Kan. 594, 599 , 303 P.3d 263 (2013), disapproved of on other grounds by Jolly, 301 Kan. at 313 . 2020State v. Florentin, 297 Kan. 594, 599 , 303 P.3d 263 (2013), disapproved of on other grounds by Jolly, 301 Kan. at 313 . | 1 | 2020–2020 |
In re the Care & Treatment of Burch
green
2 sentences2020The appointment of an examiner is discretionary." Quary asks this court to apply the probable cause standard from K.S.A. 2019 Supp. 59-29a08(d) and In re Care and Treatment of Burch, 296 Kan. 215, 225 , 291 P.3d 78 (2012), and rule that the district court made an error of law when it failed to apply this standard. 2020The appointment of an examiner is discretionary." Quary asks this court to apply the probable cause standard from K.S.A. 2019 Supp. 59-29a08(d) and In re Care and Treatment of Burch, 296 Kan. 215, 225 , 291 P.3d 78 (2012), and rule that the district court made an error of law when it failed to apply this standard. | 1 | 2020–2020 |
State v. Henriod
green
1 sentence2006The court concluded: “Because we believe that Craig , not Crawford , is controlling, we find that the district court made an error of law, and therefore committed an abuse of discretion, when it held that Crawford prevented a child from testifying via closed circuit television.” 131 P.3d at 237-38 ; see also Williams v. United States, 859 A.2d 130 (D.C. 2004) (taking 5-year-old victim’s testimony via closed-circuit television was warranted); Ahmed v. United States, 856 A.2d 560 (D.C. 2004) (defendant’s confrontation rights were not violated when the trial court allowed child victim to testify | 1 | 2006–2006 |
Ahmed v. United States
green
1 sentence2006The court concluded: “Because we believe that Craig , not Crawford , is controlling, we find that the district court made an error of law, and therefore committed an abuse of discretion, when it held that Crawford prevented a child from testifying via closed circuit television.” 131 P.3d at 237-38 ; see also Williams v. United States, 859 A.2d 130 (D.C. 2004) (taking 5-year-old victim’s testimony via closed-circuit television was warranted); Ahmed v. United States, 856 A.2d 560 (D.C. 2004) (defendant’s confrontation rights were not violated when the trial court allowed child victim to testify | 1 | 2006–2006 |
Barnes v. State
green
1 sentence2006The court concluded: “Because we believe that Craig , not Crawford , is controlling, we find that the district court made an error of law, and therefore committed an abuse of discretion, when it held that Crawford prevented a child from testifying via closed circuit television.” 131 P.3d at 237-38 ; see also Williams v. United States, 859 A.2d 130 (D.C. 2004) (taking 5-year-old victim’s testimony via closed-circuit television was warranted); Ahmed v. United States, 856 A.2d 560 (D.C. 2004) (defendant’s confrontation rights were not violated when the trial court allowed child victim to testify | 1 | 2006–2006 |
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.