hearing claim in Kansas

2020S. Ct. R. 199) (allowing district courts to rule on motions without a hearing even when a hearing is requested if oral argument would not materially aid the court); In re Roe, 773 N.Y.S.2d 215 (N.Y.

2020In State v. Evans, 275 Kan. 95 , 62 P.3d 220 (2003), we held an informal proffer sufficient when "the record show[ed] that the State was well aware of the evidence in this case when it filed its motion in limine claiming that [defendant] would introduce testimony of witnesses who saw Reed holding the gun immediately after the shot was fired. [Defendant's] attorney further pointed out at the hearing that the defense had a witness who would also testify that Reed later admitted to killing Prince.

2020In State v. Evans, 275 Kan. 95 , 62 P.3d 220 (2003), we held an informal proffer sufficient when "the record show[ed] that the State was well aware of the evidence in this case when it filed its motion in limine claiming that [defendant] would introduce testimony of witnesses who saw Reed holding the gun immediately after the shot was fired. [Defendant's] attorney further pointed out at the hearing that the defense had a witness who would also testify that Reed later admitted to killing Prince.

2019In opposing the motion, M.S. argued that she was "entitled to a hearing on that claim, and the children are entitled to representation to determine whether it is in their best interests to sever that bond, pursuant to [ In re Marriage of Ross , 245 Kan. 591 , 783 P.2d 331 (1989) ] and [ Frazier v. Goudschaal, 296 Kan. 730 , 295 P.3d 542 (2013) ].

2019In opposing the motion, M.S. argued that she was "entitled to a hearing on that claim, and the children are entitled to representation to determine whether it is in their best interests to sever that bond, pursuant to [ In re Marriage of Ross , 245 Kan. 591 , 783 P.2d 331 (1989) ] and [ Frazier v. Goudschaal, 296 Kan. 730 , 295 P.3d 542 (2013) ].

2019In opposing the motion, M.S. argued that she was "entitled to a hearing on that claim, and the children are entitled to representation to determine whether it is in their best interests to sever that bond, pursuant to [ In re Marriage of Ross , 245 Kan. 591 , 783 P.2d 331 (1989) ] and [ Frazier v. Goudschaal, 296 Kan. 730 , 295 P.3d 542 (2013) ].

2019In opposing the motion, M.S. argued that she was "entitled to a hearing on that claim, and the children are entitled to representation to determine whether it is in their best interests to sever that bond, pursuant to [ In re Marriage of Ross , 245 Kan. 591 , 783 P.2d 331 (1989) ] and [ Frazier v. Goudschaal, 296 Kan. 730 , 295 P.3d 542 (2013) ].

2010While Elnicki’s appeal was pending before us, he moved for a remand to the district court pursuant to State v. Van Cleave, 239 Kan. 117 , 716 P.2d 580 (1986), for a hearing on his claim that his counsel at his second trial was ineffective.

2010While Elnicki’s appeal was pending before us, he moved for a remand to the district court pursuant to State v. Van Cleave, 239 Kan. 117 , 716 P.2d 580 (1986), for a hearing on his claim that his counsel at his second trial was ineffective.

2007Toman v. State, 213 Kan. 857, 860 , 518 P.2d 502 (1974).

2007Toman v. State, 213 Kan. 857, 860 , 518 P.2d 502 (1974).

2003Under K.S.A. 60-4113(g), “the hearing on the claim shall be held within 60 days after service of the petition unless continued for good'cause.” The case, however, was set more than 60 days after service of the petition and the hearing was held more than 100 days after service of the petition. 26 Kan.

1996Making clear that the question before it was not the materiality of the excluded evidence, the Missouri Supreme Court ordered that Nelson should be discharged on the ground that he was condemned without a hearing in violation of the constitutional guarantee of due process. 251 Mo. at 103-06 .

1990App. 2d 709, 710-11 , 586 P.2d 1386 (1978). (1) The Date of the First Hearing The defendant contends that the phrase “within the immediately preceding five years” refers to five years preceding May 24, 1990, the date the habitual violator petition was set for hearing.

1965(Drainage District v. Wyandotte County et al, 117 Kan. 369 , 232 Pac. 266 , Gray v. Jenkins, 183 Kan. 251, 254 , 326 P. 2d 319 .) At the oral argument of this appeal counsel for plaintiff stated that to date he had been unable to ascertain the “status of things” with respect to plaintiff’s “demand.” Be that as it may, the record does not show that plaintiff had requested a hearing or that a hearing had been denied to him.

1965(Drainage District v. Wyandotte County et al, 117 Kan. 369 , 232 Pac. 266 , Gray v. Jenkins, 183 Kan. 251, 254 , 326 P. 2d 319 .) At the oral argument of this appeal counsel for plaintiff stated that to date he had been unable to ascertain the “status of things” with respect to plaintiff’s “demand.” Be that as it may, the record does not show that plaintiff had requested a hearing or that a hearing had been denied to him.

1965(Drainage District v. Wyandotte County et al, 117 Kan. 369 , 232 Pac. 266 , Gray v. Jenkins, 183 Kan. 251, 254 , 326 P. 2d 319 .) At the oral argument of this appeal counsel for plaintiff stated that to date he had been unable to ascertain the “status of things” with respect to plaintiff’s “demand.” Be that as it may, the record does not show that plaintiff had requested a hearing or that a hearing had been denied to him.

1965(Drainage District v. Wyandotte County et al, 117 Kan. 369 , 232 Pac. 266 , Gray v. Jenkins, 183 Kan. 251, 254 , 326 P. 2d 319 .) At the oral argument of this appeal counsel for plaintiff stated that to date he had been unable to ascertain the “status of things” with respect to plaintiff’s “demand.” Be that as it may, the record does not show that plaintiff had requested a hearing or that a hearing had been denied to him.

1941(Bristow v. First Trust Co., 140 Kan. 711 , 38 P. 2d 108 ; Lane v. Estate of Wells, 150 Kan. 261 , 92 P. 2d 9 ; Allen v. Turner, 152 Kan. 590, 595 , 106 P. 2d 715 .) The probate code did not lengthen the time of presenting or hearing claims; on the contrary where any change was made the time was shortened; hence, the reasons underlying the decisions last cited are applicable here. , Pertinent excerpts from the probate code, applicable here, are as follows (all references are to G.

1941(Bristow v. First Trust Co., 140 Kan. 711 , 38 P. 2d 108 ; Lane v. Estate of Wells, 150 Kan. 261 , 92 P. 2d 9 ; Allen v. Turner, 152 Kan. 590, 595 , 106 P. 2d 715 .) The probate code did not lengthen the time of presenting or hearing claims; on the contrary where any change was made the time was shortened; hence, the reasons underlying the decisions last cited are applicable here. , Pertinent excerpts from the probate code, applicable here, are as follows (all references are to G.

1941(Bristow v. First Trust Co., 140 Kan. 711 , 38 P. 2d 108 ; Lane v. Estate of Wells, 150 Kan. 261 , 92 P. 2d 9 ; Allen v. Turner, 152 Kan. 590, 595 , 106 P. 2d 715 .) The probate code did not lengthen the time of presenting or hearing claims; on the contrary where any change was made the time was shortened; hence, the reasons underlying the decisions last cited are applicable here. , Pertinent excerpts from the probate code, applicable here, are as follows (all references are to G.

1941(Bristow v. First Trust Co., 140 Kan. 711 , 38 P. 2d 108 ; Lane v. Estate of Wells, 150 Kan. 261 , 92 P. 2d 9 ; Allen v. Turner, 152 Kan. 590, 595 , 106 P. 2d 715 .) The probate code did not lengthen the time of presenting or hearing claims; on the contrary where any change was made the time was shortened; hence, the reasons underlying the decisions last cited are applicable here. , Pertinent excerpts from the probate code, applicable here, are as follows (all references are to G.

1941(Bristow v. First Trust Co., 140 Kan. 711 , 38 P. 2d 108 ; Lane v. Estate of Wells, 150 Kan. 261 , 92 P. 2d 9 ; Allen v. Turner, 152 Kan. 590, 595 , 106 P. 2d 715 .) The probate code did not lengthen the time of presenting or hearing claims; on the contrary where any change was made the time was shortened; hence, the reasons underlying the decisions last cited are applicable here. , Pertinent excerpts from the probate code, applicable here, are as follows (all references are to G.

1941(Bristow v. First Trust Co., 140 Kan. 711 , 38 P. 2d 108 ; Lane v. Estate of Wells, 150 Kan. 261 , 92 P. 2d 9 ; Allen v. Turner, 152 Kan. 590, 595 , 106 P. 2d 715 .) The probate code did not lengthen the time of presenting or hearing claims; on the contrary where any change was made the time was shortened; hence, the reasons underlying the decisions last cited are applicable here. , Pertinent excerpts from the probate code, applicable here, are as follows (all references are to G.

1940Co., 142 Kan. 164 , 45 P. 2d 861 , it was said that on the hearing of a claim for compensation it was the duty of the commissioner to hear all the evidence pertaining to any question at issue.

1940Co., 142 Kan. 164 , 45 P. 2d 861 , it was said that on the hearing of a claim for compensation it was the duty of the commissioner to hear all the evidence pertaining to any question at issue.