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.
13 Kansas opinions name it 2 courts 1979–2026 5 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. Lawrencegreen2 sentences2024See State v. Lawrence, 281 Kan. 1081, 1091 , 135 P.3d 1211 (2006). 2024See State v. Lawrence, 281 Kan. 1081, 1091 , 135 P.3d 1211 (2006). | 3 | 3 |
State v. Williamsgreen2 sentences2016State v. Clay, 300 Kan. 401, 408 , 329 P.3d 484 (2014); see State v. Williams, 295 Kan. 506, 516 , 286 P.3d 195 (2012) (whether a given instruction was legally appropriate is subject to unlimited appellate review). 2016State v. Clay, 300 Kan. 401, 408 , 329 P.3d 484 (2014); see State v. Williams, 295 Kan. 506, 516 , 286 P.3d 195 (2012) (whether a given instruction was legally appropriate is subject to unlimited appellate review). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Llamasgreen2 sentences2014See State v. Llamas, 298 Kan. 246, 261 , 311 P.3d 399 (2013) (stating presumption that jury follows instructions). 2014See State v. Llamas, 298 Kan. 246, 261 , 311 P.3d 399 (2013) (stating presumption that jury follows instructions). | 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. Kleypas
green
2 sentences2024K.S.A. 2022 Supp. 21-6617's predecessor "does not require the jury to unanimously conclude that a death sentence is unwarranted in order to sentence the defendant to a punishment other than death; rather, the jury must only fail to unanimously conclude beyond a reasonable doubt that a death sentence is warranted." 272 Kan. at 1062 . 65 Flack correctly notes the jury is not under a duty to reach a unanimous verdict, but he fails to establish the given instruction might lead jurors to believe such a duty existed. 2024K.S.A. 2022 Supp. 21-6617's predecessor "does not require the jury to unanimously conclude that a death sentence is unwarranted in order to sentence the defendant to a punishment other than death; rather, the jury must only fail to unanimously conclude beyond a reasonable doubt that a death sentence is warranted." 272 Kan. at 1062 . 65 Flack correctly notes the jury is not under a duty to reach a unanimous verdict, but he fails to establish the given instruction might lead jurors to believe such a duty existed. | 2 | 2024–2024 |
State v. McClelland
green
2 sentences2026The given instruction did not add any "alternate statutory element," and it was "more precise," "not broader than the charged crime." State v. McClelland, 301 Kan. 815, 829-30 , 347 P.3d 211 (2015). 2026The given instruction did not add any "alternate statutory element," and it was "more precise," "not broader than the charged crime." State v. McClelland, 301 Kan. 815, 829-30 , 347 P.3d 211 (2015). | 1 | 2026–2026 |
State v. Verser
green
2 sentences2018For support in refuting invited error, he cites to Verser , 299 Kan. at 784 , 326 P.3d 1046 , and State v. Hargrove , 48 Kan. 2018For support in refuting invited error, he cites to Verser , 299 Kan. at 784 , 326 P.3d 1046 , and State v. Hargrove , 48 Kan. | 1 | 2018–2018 |
State v. Hargrove
green
1 sentence2018For support in refuting invited error, he cites to Verser , 299 Kan. at 784 , 326 P.3d 1046 , and State v. Hargrove , 48 Kan. | 1 | 2018–2018 |
State v. Clay
green
2 sentences2016State v. Clay, 300 Kan. 401, 408 , 329 P.3d 484 (2014); see State v. Williams, 295 Kan. 506, 516 , 286 P.3d 195 (2012) (whether a given instruction was legally appropriate is subject to unlimited appellate review). 2016State v. Clay, 300 Kan. 401, 408 , 329 P.3d 484 (2014); see State v. Williams, 295 Kan. 506, 516 , 286 P.3d 195 (2012) (whether a given instruction was legally appropriate is subject to unlimited appellate review). | 1 | 2016–2016 |
State v. Cooperwood
green
2 sentences2007K.S.A. 2006 Supp. 22-3414(3); State v. Cooperwood, 282 Kan. 572, 581 , 147 P.3d 125 (2006). 2007K.S.A. 2006 Supp. 22-3414(3); State v. Cooperwood, 282 Kan. 572, 581 , 147 P.3d 125 (2006). | 1 | 2007–2007 |
State v. Simon
green
2 sentences1985A reasonable belief implies both a belief and the existence of facts that would persuade a reasonable man to that belief.” State v. Simon, 231 Kan. 572, 575 , 646 P.2d 1119 (1982); PIK Crim.2d 54.17. “[I]n order to rely on self-defense as a defense, a person must have a belief that the force used was necessary to defend himself and, also, show the existence of some facts that would support such belief.” State v. Childers, 222 Kan. 32, 48 , 563 P.2d 999 (1977). 1985A reasonable belief implies both a belief and the existence of facts that would persuade a reasonable man to that belief.” State v. Simon, 231 Kan. 572, 575 , 646 P.2d 1119 (1982); PIK Crim.2d 54.17. “[I]n order to rely on self-defense as a defense, a person must have a belief that the force used was necessary to defend himself and, also, show the existence of some facts that would support such belief.” State v. Childers, 222 Kan. 32, 48 , 563 P.2d 999 (1977). | 1 | 1985–1985 |
State v. Childers
green
2 sentences1985A reasonable belief implies both a belief and the existence of facts that would persuade a reasonable man to that belief.” State v. Simon, 231 Kan. 572, 575 , 646 P.2d 1119 (1982); PIK Crim.2d 54.17. “[I]n order to rely on self-defense as a defense, a person must have a belief that the force used was necessary to defend himself and, also, show the existence of some facts that would support such belief.” State v. Childers, 222 Kan. 32, 48 , 563 P.2d 999 (1977). 1985A reasonable belief implies both a belief and the existence of facts that would persuade a reasonable man to that belief.” State v. Simon, 231 Kan. 572, 575 , 646 P.2d 1119 (1982); PIK Crim.2d 54.17. “[I]n order to rely on self-defense as a defense, a person must have a belief that the force used was necessary to defend himself and, also, show the existence of some facts that would support such belief.” State v. Childers, 222 Kan. 32, 48 , 563 P.2d 999 (1977). | 1 | 1985–1985 |
Tark v. Shearson/American Express, Inc.
neutral
1 sentence1985In our opinion, the careful trial judge had no alternative but to adopt the instruction tendered by plaintiff.” Tark, 123 Ill. | 1 | 1985–1985 |
State v. Schur
green
2 sentences1979Mincey v. Arizona, 437 U.S. 385 , 57 L.Ed.2d 290, 298-299 , 98 S.Ct. 2408 (1978); State v. Schur, 217 Kan. 741, 743 , 538 P.2d 689 (1975). 1979Mincey v. Arizona, 437 U.S. 385 , 57 L.Ed.2d 290, 298-299 , 98 S.Ct. 2408 (1978); State v. Schur, 217 Kan. 741, 743 , 538 P.2d 689 (1975). | 1 | 1979–1979 |
Mincey v. Arizona
green
2 sentences1979Mincey v. Arizona, 437 U.S. 385 , 57 L.Ed.2d 290, 298-299 , 98 S.Ct. 2408 (1978); State v. Schur, 217 Kan. 741, 743 , 538 P.2d 689 (1975). 1979Mincey v. Arizona, 437 U.S. 385 , 57 L.Ed.2d 290, 298-299 , 98 S.Ct. 2408 (1978); State v. Schur, 217 Kan. 741, 743 , 538 P.2d 689 (1975). | 1 | 1979–1979 |
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.