neutral and detached hearing (Kansas) · Go Syfert
← Kansas issues

neutral and detached hearing in Kansas

13 Kansas opinions name it 2 courts 1997–2024 6 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.

Followed or applied (2)

CaseFollowedCited
Gagnon v. Scarpellired
scotus · 1973 · cited in 2 Kansas opinions naming this issue, 1997–2003
2 sentences

2003See Brown v. Kansas Parole Board, 262 Kan. 903, 909 , 943 P.2d 1240 (1997) (citing Gagnon v. Scarpelli, 411 U.S. 778, 786 , 36 L.

1997Finally, the trial court paraphrased Morrissey, 408 U.S. at 480 : “[R]evocation of parole is not part of a criminal prosecution, and thus the full panoply of rights due to a defendant in such proceeding does not apply to parole revocation hearings.” The court also outlined the minimum due process requirements for a parole revocation hearing as listed in Gagnon : “(1) written notice of the claimed violation; “(2) disclosure to parolee of evidence against him; “(3) opportunity to be heard in person and to present witnesses and documentary evidence; “(4) right to confront adverse witnesses [if an

12
Brown v. Kansas Parole Boardgreen
kan · 1997 · cited in 1 Kansas opinions naming this issue, 2003–2003
2 sentences

2003See Brown v. Kansas Parole Board, 262 Kan. 903, 909 , 943 P.2d 1240 (1997) (citing Gagnon v. Scarpelli, 411 U.S. 778, 786 , 36 L.

2003See Brown v. Kansas Parole Board, 262 Kan. 903, 909 , 943 P.2d 1240 (1997) (citing Gagnon v. Scarpelli, 411 U.S. 778, 786 , 36 L.

11

Distinguished, questioned or overruled (0)

CaseNegativeCited
No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Kansas. Read the followed side critically anyway.

Also cited on this issue (4)

CaseCitedYears
State v. Billings green
kanctapp · 2002
2 sentences

2024The probationer also has a right to the assistance of counsel.'[Citation omitted.]" (Emphasis added.) Hurley, 303 Kan. at 582 (quoting State v. Billings, 30 Kan.

2021The probationer also has a right to the assistance of counsel.' State v. Billings, 30 Kan.

82011–2024
State v. Hurley green
kan · 2016
2 sentences

2024This court exercises unlimited review over questions of due process violations in probation revocation. 303 Kan. at 580 . 7 When revoking probation: "'Minimum due process includes written notice of the claimed violations of probation, disclosure to the probationer of the evidence against him or her, the opportunity to be heard in person and to present evidence and witnesses, the right to confront and cross- examine adverse witnesses, a neutral and detached hearing body, and a written statement by the factfinder as to the evidence relied on and reasons for revoking probation.

2024The probationer also has a right to the assistance of counsel.'[Citation omitted.]" (Emphasis added.) Hurley, 303 Kan. at 582 (quoting State v. Billings, 30 Kan.

52020–2024
Black v. Romano green
scotus · 1985
2 sentences

2011The probationer also has a right to the assistance of counsel." State v. Billings, 30 Kan.App.2d 236, 238 , 39 P.3d 682 (2002) (citing Black v. Romano, 471 U.S. 606, 612 , 105 S.Ct. 2254 , 85 L.Ed.2d 636 [1985]).

2011The probationer also has a right to the assistance of counsel." State v. Billings, 30 Kan.App.2d 236, 238 , 39 P.3d 682 (2002) (citing Black v. Romano, 471 U.S. 606, 612 , 105 S.Ct. 2254 , 85 L.Ed.2d 636 [1985]).

12011–2011
Morrissey v. Brewer green
scotus · 1972
1 sentence

1997Finally, the trial court paraphrased Morrissey, 408 U.S. at 480 : “[R]evocation of parole is not part of a criminal prosecution, and thus the full panoply of rights due to a defendant in such proceeding does not apply to parole revocation hearings.” The court also outlined the minimum due process requirements for a parole revocation hearing as listed in Gagnon : “(1) written notice of the claimed violation; “(2) disclosure to parolee of evidence against him; “(3) opportunity to be heard in person and to present witnesses and documentary evidence; “(4) right to confront adverse witnesses [if an

11997–1997

Statutes the citing opinions construe

KS § K.S.A. § 22-3716 (11)

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.

Where else courts name it

TX 191 (1986–2026) IN 88 (1974–2026) OH 59 (1998–2026) TN 29 (2001–2022) WA 18 (1999–2024) PA 18 (1979–2026) MS 15 (2004–2021) WI 15 (1976–2014) KS 13 (1997–2024) CA 12 (1975–2025) AL 12 (1986–2018) IL 8 (1979–2005) CO 7 (1985–2026) WV 5 (1987–2019) FL 5 (1978–2006) NM 4 (1980–2019) NE 3 (1976–1986) KY 3 (2010–2021) CT 3 (1988–2006) NV 2 (1991–2015) AR 2 (2012–2016) MI 2 (1982–1984) IA 2 (2008–2008) MT 2 (1986–2025) MA 2 (2000–2003) NY 2 (1976–2003) DE 2 (2017–2019) SC 2 (2006–2007) MN 2 (2016–2017) UT 2 (1990–2005) ID 2 (1983–2006)

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.

← Caselaw search · G Cite Topics · Brief Check