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 2005–2025 9 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 |
|---|---|---|
In re E.L.green2 sentences2025See In re E.L., 61 Kan. 2025See In re E.L., 61 Kan. | 4 | 4 |
Kumho Tire Co. v. Carmichaelgreen2 sentences2020In Cone, we cited Daubert for the list of nonexclusive factors the district courts could consider when fulfilling that gatekeeping requirement, i.e., "to ensure the reliability and relevancy of expert testimony." Kumho Tire Co. v. Carmichael, 526 U.S. 137, 152 , 119 S. Ct. 1167 , 143 L. 2020In Cone, we cited Daubert for the list of nonexclusive factors the district courts could consider when fulfilling that gatekeeping requirement, i.e., "to ensure the reliability and relevancy of expert testimony." Kumho Tire Co. v. Carmichael, 526 U.S. 137, 152 , 119 S. Ct. 1167 , 143 L. | 1 | 2 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Kansas. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
State v. Randolph
green
2 sentences2021The list of nonexclusive factors a district court must consider when looking at the totality of the circumstances to determine whether a defendant's statements are voluntary are: "'(1) the accused's mental condition; (2) the manner and duration of the interrogation; (3) the ability of the accused to communicate on request with the outside world; (4) the accused's age, intellect, and background; (5) the fairness of the officers in conducting the interrogation; and (6) the accused's fluency with the English language.' [Citations omitted.]" Randolph, 297 Kan. at 326 . 2021The list of nonexclusive factors a district court must consider when looking at the totality of the circumstances to determine whether a defendant's statements are voluntary are: "'(1) the accused's mental condition; (2) the manner and duration of the interrogation; (3) the ability of the accused to communicate on request with the outside world; (4) the accused's age, intellect, and background; (5) the fairness of the officers in conducting the interrogation; and (6) the accused's fluency with the English language.' [Citations omitted.]" Randolph, 297 Kan. at 326 . | 2 | 2021–2021 |
State v. Johnson
green
2 sentences2021When considering the voluntariness of a statement, courts look to the following list of nonexclusive factors: "'(1) the accused's mental condition; (2) the manner and duration of the interrogation; (3) the ability of the accused to communicate on request with the outside world; (4) the accused's age, intellect, and background; (5) the fairness of the officers in conducting the interrogation; and (6) the accused's fluency with the English language.'" 286 Kan. at 836 . 2019And to determine whether the statement was the product of the defendant's free and independent will, this court examines the totality of the circumstances surrounding it and determines its voluntariness by considering the following list of nonexclusive factors: " '(1) the accused's mental condition; (2) the manner and duration of the interrogation; (3) the ability of the accused to communicate on request with the outside world; (4) the accused's age, intellect, and background; (5) the fairness of the officers in conducting the interrogation; and (6) the accused's fluency with the English langu | 2 | 2019–2021 |
State v. Gibson
green
2 sentences2020The following list of nonexclusive factors is typically considered: "(1) the accused's mental condition; (2) the manner and duration of the interview; (3) the accused's ability to communicate on request with the outside world; (4) the accused's age, intellect, and background; (5) the officer's fairness in conducting the interview; and (6) the accused's fluency with the English language. [Citations omitted.]" Gibson, 299 Kan. at 214 . 2017State v. Gibson, 299 Kan. 207, 214 , 322 P.3d 389 (2014). | 2 | 2017–2020 |
In Re MM
neutral
2 sentences2005K.S.A. 2004 Supp. 38-1583(c); In re M.M., 19 Kan. 2005K.S.A. 2004 Supp. 38-1583(c); In re M.M., 19 Kan. | 2 | 2005–2005 |
State v. Morris
green
2 sentences2024The list of nonexclusive factors a district court must consider when looking at the totality of the circumstances to determine whether a defendant's statements are voluntary is the duration and manner of the interrogation; the ability of the accused on request to communicate with the outside world; the accused's age, intellect, and background; and the fairness of the officers in conducting the interrogation." State v. Morris, 255 Kan. 964, 971 , 880 P.2d 1244 (1994). 2024The list of nonexclusive factors a district court must consider when looking at the totality of the circumstances to determine whether a defendant's statements are voluntary is the duration and manner of the interrogation; the ability of the accused on request to communicate with the outside world; the accused's age, intellect, and background; and the fairness of the officers in conducting the interrogation." State v. Morris, 255 Kan. 964, 971 , 880 P.2d 1244 (1994). | 1 | 2024–2024 |
In re Interest of R.S., P.S., and A.S. line
green
1 sentence2021App. 2d 1105, 1115-16 , 336 P.3d 903 (2014). 10 When determining whether to terminate an individual's parental rights, the district court must consider a list of nonexclusive factors set out in K.S.A. 2020 Supp. 38- 2269(b). | 1 | 2021–2021 |
State v. Sharp
green
2 sentences2019In State v. Sharp , 289 Kan. 72 , 81, 210 P.3d 590 (2009), this court described the weight a court should give these six factors: " '[T]hese factors are not to be weighed against one another ..., with those favorable to a free and voluntary confession offsetting those tending to the contrary. 2019In State v. Sharp , 289 Kan. 72 , 81, 210 P.3d 590 (2009), this court described the weight a court should give these six factors: " '[T]hese factors are not to be weighed against one another ..., with those favorable to a free and voluntary confession offsetting those tending to the contrary. | 1 | 2019–2019 |
Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc.
green
2 sentences2019To that end, Daubert provided a list of nonexclusive factors a trial judge could use to fulfill this gatekeeping requirement: whether the theory or technique can and has been tested; whether it has been subject to peer review; the rate of error; the existence and maintenance of standards; and whether the theory or technique has general acceptance among the relevant scientific community. 509 U.S. at 592 -94 , 113 S.Ct. 2786 . 2019To that end, Daubert provided a list of nonexclusive factors a trial judge could use to fulfill this gatekeeping requirement: whether the theory or technique can and has been tested; whether it has been subject to peer review; the rate of error; the existence and maintenance of standards; and whether the theory or technique has general acceptance among the relevant scientific community. 509 U.S. at 592 -94 , 113 S.Ct. 2786 . | 1 | 2019–2019 |
State v. Stone
green
2 sentences2019And to determine whether the statement was the product of the defendant's free and independent will, this court examines the totality of the circumstances surrounding it and determines its voluntariness by considering the following list of nonexclusive factors: " '(1) the accused's mental condition; (2) the manner and duration of the interrogation; (3) the ability of the accused to communicate on request with the outside world; (4) the accused's age, intellect, and background; (5) the fairness of the officers in conducting the interrogation; and (6) the accused's fluency with the English langu 2019And to determine whether the statement was the product of the defendant's free and independent will, this court examines the totality of the circumstances surrounding it and determines its voluntariness by considering the following list of nonexclusive factors: " '(1) the accused's mental condition; (2) the manner and duration of the interrogation; (3) the ability of the accused to communicate on request with the outside world; (4) the accused's age, intellect, and background; (5) the fairness of the officers in conducting the interrogation; and (6) the accused's fluency with the English langu | 1 | 2019–2019 |
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.