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.
14 Kansas opinions name it 2 courts 1983–2026 2 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 Mintzgreen2 sentences2021Use of such guidelines assists such bodies in "selecting appropriate and uniform discipline, depending upon the facts and the aggravating and mitigating factors of each case." In re Keithley, 252 Kan. 1053, 1057 , 18 850 P.2d 277 (1993) (discussing Standards for Imposing Lawyer Sanctions); see, e.g., In re Mintz, 298 Kan. 897, 912 , 317 P.3d 756 (2014) ("Generally, in determining the appropriate level of discipline, this court considers the factors outlined by the ABA Standards."). 2021Use of such guidelines assists such bodies in "selecting appropriate and uniform discipline, depending upon the facts and the aggravating and mitigating factors of each case." In re Keithley, 252 Kan. 1053, 1057 , 18 850 P.2d 277 (1993) (discussing Standards for Imposing Lawyer Sanctions); see, e.g., In re Mintz, 298 Kan. 897, 912 , 317 P.3d 756 (2014) ("Generally, in determining the appropriate level of discipline, this court considers the factors outlined by the ABA Standards."). | 1 | 1 |
In Re Woodringgreen2 sentences2014See In re Woodring, 289 Kan. 173, 180, 186 , 210 P.3d 120 (2009) (discussing and applying ABA Standards); In re Rumsey, 276 Kan. 65, 78-79 , 71 P.3d 1150 (2003) (citing and discussing ABA Standards). 2014See In re Woodring, 289 Kan. 173, 180, 186 , 210 P.3d 120 (2009) (discussing and applying ABA Standards); In re Rumsey, 276 Kan. 65, 78-79 , 71 P.3d 1150 (2003) (citing and discussing ABA Standards). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Kansas. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
In Re Frahm
green
2 sentences2014In re Frahm, 291 Kan. 520, 525 , 241 P.3d 1010 (2010). 2014In re Frahm, 291 Kan. 520, 525 , 241 P.3d 1010 (2010). | 3 | 2012–2014 |
State v. Burnett
green
2 sentences2016There, we held that an appellate court reviews a district courts determination of materiality de novo and tire assessment of probative value under an abuse of discretion standard. [Citation omitted.]’” State v. Burnett, 300 Kan. 419, 427 , 329 P.3d 1169 (2014) (quoting State v. Ultreras, 296 Kan. 828, 857 , 295 P.3d 1020 [2013]). 2016There, we held that an appellate court reviews a district courts determination of materiality de novo and tire assessment of probative value under an abuse of discretion standard. [Citation omitted.]’” State v. Burnett, 300 Kan. 419, 427 , 329 P.3d 1169 (2014) (quoting State v. Ultreras, 296 Kan. 828, 857 , 295 P.3d 1020 [2013]). | 2 | 2016–2016 |
State v. Ultreras
green
2 sentences2016There, we held that an appellate court reviews a district courts determination of materiality de novo and tire assessment of probative value under an abuse of discretion standard. [Citation omitted.]’” State v. Burnett, 300 Kan. 419, 427 , 329 P.3d 1169 (2014) (quoting State v. Ultreras, 296 Kan. 828, 857 , 295 P.3d 1020 [2013]). 2016There, we held that an appellate court reviews a district courts determination of materiality de novo and tire assessment of probative value under an abuse of discretion standard. [Citation omitted.]’” State v. Burnett, 300 Kan. 419, 427 , 329 P.3d 1169 (2014) (quoting State v. Ultreras, 296 Kan. 828, 857 , 295 P.3d 1020 [2013]). | 2 | 2016–2016 |
State v. Reid
green
2 sentences2016When this court considers a challenge to exclusion of evidence, we first consider relevance, which is established by ‘“a material or logical connection between the asserted facts and the inference or result they are intended to establish. [Citation omitted.] Relevant evidence, as defined in K.S.A. 60-401(b), is “evidence having any tendency in reason to prove any material fact.” In State v. Reid, 286 Kan. 494, 505 , 186 P.3d 713 (2008), we explained that this definition of “relevance” contains both a materiality element and a probative element. 2016When this court considers a challenge to exclusion of evidence, we first consider relevance, which is established by ‘“a material or logical connection between the asserted facts and the inference or result they are intended to establish. [Citation omitted.] Relevant evidence, as defined in K.S.A. 60-401(b), is “evidence having any tendency in reason to prove any material fact.” In State v. Reid, 286 Kan. 494, 505 , 186 P.3d 713 (2008), we explained that this definition of “relevance” contains both a materiality element and a probative element. | 2 | 2016–2016 |
State v. Hawes
green
2 sentences2005See K.S.A. 2004 Supp. 21-4716(a); State v. Hawes, 22 Kan. 2005See K.S.A. 2004 Supp. 21-4716(a); State v. Hawes, 22 Kan. | 2 | 2005–2005 |
Strickland v. Washington
green
2 sentences2001When a trial court considers a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel, it must apply the two-prong test of Strickland, v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 , 80 L. 2001When a trial court considers a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel, it must apply the two-prong test of Strickland, v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 , 80 L. | 2 | 1992–2001 |
Chamberlain v. State
green
2 sentences1998When a trial court considers a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel, it must follow the two-prong test established by the United States Supreme Court in Washington and adopted by this court in Chamberlain v. State, 236 Kan. 650, 656-57 , 694 P.2d 468 (1985). 1998When a trial court considers a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel, it must follow the two-prong test established by the United States Supreme Court in Washington and adopted by this court in Chamberlain v. State, 236 Kan. 650, 656-57 , 694 P.2d 468 (1985). | 2 | 1992–1998 |
State v. Crosby
green
1 sentence2026"At the second step, this court considers whether the instruction was legally and factually appropriate." State v. Crosby, 312 Kan. 630 , 639, 479 P.3d 167 (2021). | 1 | 2026–2026 |
In Re Keithley
green
1 sentence2021Use of such guidelines assists such bodies in "selecting appropriate and uniform discipline, depending upon the facts and the aggravating and mitigating factors of each case." In re Keithley, 252 Kan. 1053, 1057 , 18 850 P.2d 277 (1993) (discussing Standards for Imposing Lawyer Sanctions); see, e.g., In re Mintz, 298 Kan. 897, 912 , 317 P.3d 756 (2014) ("Generally, in determining the appropriate level of discipline, this court considers the factors outlined by the ABA Standards."). | 1 | 2021–2021 |
In Re Rumsey
green
2 sentences2014See In re Woodring, 289 Kan. 173, 180, 186 , 210 P.3d 120 (2009) (discussing and applying ABA Standards); In re Rumsey, 276 Kan. 65, 78-79 , 71 P.3d 1150 (2003) (citing and discussing ABA Standards). 2014See In re Woodring, 289 Kan. 173, 180, 186 , 210 P.3d 120 (2009) (discussing and applying ABA Standards); In re Rumsey, 276 Kan. 65, 78-79 , 71 P.3d 1150 (2003) (citing and discussing ABA Standards). | 1 | 2014–2014 |
In re Angst
green
2 sentences2010In re Angst, 278 Kan. 500, 503-04 , 102 P.3d 388 (2004). 2010In re Angst, 278 Kan. 500, 503-04 , 102 P.3d 388 (2004). | 1 | 2010–2010 |
Chastleton Corp. v. Sinclair
green
2 sentences1983This court considers that the principle announced in Chastleton Corp. v. Sinclair, 264 *598 U.S. 543, 44 S.Ct. 405 , 68 L.Ed. 841 (1924), is controlling. 1983This court considers that the principle announced in Chastleton Corp. v. Sinclair, 264 *598 U.S. 543, 44 S.Ct. 405 , 68 L.Ed. 841 (1924), is controlling. | 1 | 1983–1983 |
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.