change rule in Kansas

2024State v. Timley, 255 Kan. 286, 293-96 , 875 P.2d 242 (1994) (finding no violation of the defendant's speedy trial rights based on continuances granted due to repeated change in appointed counsel), disapproved on other grounds by State v. Nunez, 298 Kan. 661 , 316 P.3d 717 (2014), and State v. Brooks, 298 Kan. 672 , 317 P.3d 54 (2014); State v. Lawrence, 38 Kan.

2024State v. Timley, 255 Kan. 286, 293-96 , 875 P.2d 242 (1994) (finding no violation of the defendant's speedy trial rights based on continuances granted due to repeated change in appointed counsel), disapproved on other grounds by State v. Nunez, 298 Kan. 661 , 316 P.3d 717 (2014), and State v. Brooks, 298 Kan. 672 , 317 P.3d 54 (2014); State v. Lawrence, 38 Kan.

2024State v. Timley, 255 Kan. 286, 293-96 , 875 P.2d 242 (1994) (finding no violation of the defendant's speedy trial rights based on continuances granted due to repeated change in appointed counsel), disapproved on other grounds by State v. Nunez, 298 Kan. 661 , 316 P.3d 717 (2014), and State v. Brooks, 298 Kan. 672 , 317 P.3d 54 (2014); State v. Lawrence, 38 Kan.

2024State v. Timley, 255 Kan. 286, 293-96 , 875 P.2d 242 (1994) (finding no violation of the defendant's speedy trial rights based on continuances granted due to repeated change in appointed counsel), disapproved on other grounds by State v. Nunez, 298 Kan. 661 , 316 P.3d 717 (2014), and State v. Brooks, 298 Kan. 672 , 317 P.3d 54 (2014); State v. Lawrence, 38 Kan.

2024State v. Timley, 255 Kan. 286, 293-96 , 875 P.2d 242 (1994) (finding no violation of the defendant's speedy trial rights based on continuances granted due to repeated change in appointed counsel), disapproved on other grounds by State v. Nunez, 298 Kan. 661 , 316 P.3d 717 (2014), and State v. Brooks, 298 Kan. 672 , 317 P.3d 54 (2014); State v. Lawrence, 38 Kan.

2008The change in the test was discussed in the 2007 decision of Brendlin v. California, 551 U.S. 249, 255 , 168 L.

2008The change in the test was discussed in the 2007 decision of Brendlin v. California, 551 U.S. 249, 255 , 168 L.

1980"The enactment of § 24-301(d) in 1955 was the direct result of the change in the standard of criminal responsibility in the District of Columbia wrought by Durham v. United States, 94 U.S. App. D.C. 228 , 214 F.2d 862 .

1980“The enactment of § 24-301(d) in 1955 was the direct result of the change in the standard of criminal responsibility in the District of Columbia wrought by Durham v. United States, 94 U.S. App. D.C. 228 , 214 F.2d 862 .

1976Just last year, in examining this kind of claim, we reiterated the long standing rule: “Where a jury has been dismissed because of failure to agree on a verdict, *853 jeopardy has not attached in a legal sense and the defendant may be placed on trial a second time on the same charge.” (State v. McKay, 217 Kan. 11 , 535 P. 2d 945 , Syl. para. 4.) McKay had a far stronger claim to former jeopardy than defendant here.

1976Just last year, in examining this kind of claim, we reiterated the long standing rule: “Where a jury has been dismissed because of failure to agree on a verdict, *853 jeopardy has not attached in a legal sense and the defendant may be placed on trial a second time on the same charge.” (State v. McKay, 217 Kan. 11 , 535 P. 2d 945 , Syl. para. 4.) McKay had a far stronger claim to former jeopardy than defendant here.

1968(Williams v. Bricker, 83 Kan. 53, 58 , 109 Pac. 998 ; Miller v. Miller, 91 Kan. 1 , 136 Pac. 953 ; Simes and Smith, Law of Future Interests, 2nd Ed. §§197, 207, 209.) With this change the doctrine of merger has become largely a matter of theory governed by equitable considerations.

1968(Williams v. Bricker, 83 Kan. 53, 58 , 109 Pac. 998 ; Miller v. Miller, 91 Kan. 1 , 136 Pac. 953 ; Simes and Smith, Law of Future Interests, 2nd Ed. §§197, 207, 209.) With this change the doctrine of merger has become largely a matter of theory governed by equitable considerations.

1968(Williams v. Bricker, 83 Kan. 53, 58 , 109 Pac. 998 ; Miller v. Miller, 91 Kan. 1 , 136 Pac. 953 ; Simes and Smith, Law of Future Interests, 2nd Ed. §§197, 207, 209.) With this change the doctrine of merger has become largely a matter of theory governed by equitable considerations.

1968(Williams v. Bricker, 83 Kan. 53, 58 , 109 Pac. 998 ; Miller v. Miller, 91 Kan. 1 , 136 Pac. 953 ; Simes and Smith, Law of Future Interests, 2nd Ed. §§197, 207, 209.) With this change the doctrine of merger has become largely a matter of theory governed by equitable considerations.

1960In 1922, a defendant endeavored to obtain a change in the rule as to the defense of insanity, and this court in The State v. White, 112 Kan. 83 , 209 Pac. 660 , said in the syllabus of that case: “Charged with assaulting her former husband with intent to commit a felony, the defendant interposed the defense of insanity.

1960In 1922, a defendant endeavored to obtain a change in the rule as to the defense of insanity, and this court in The State v. White, 112 Kan. 83 , 209 Pac. 660 , said in the syllabus of that case: “Charged with assaulting her former husband with intent to commit a felony, the defendant interposed the defense of insanity.

1924In Landon v. Court of Industrial Relations, 269 Fed. 433 , the court, in treating of the subject and standard of leakage, said: “This change in the standard of leakage is for the purpose of conservation, and the consumers are as a matter of fact more interested in conservation than the distributing companies.

1914(Shepard v. Pratt, 16 Kan. 209, 213 ; Beard v. Rotvland, 71 Kan. 873 , 81 Pac. 188 ; Weiland v. Sell, 83 Kan. 229 , 109 Pac. 771 ; and see the cases cited in Note, 18 L.

1914(Shepard v. Pratt, 16 Kan. 209, 213 ; Beard v. Rotvland, 71 Kan. 873 , 81 Pac. 188 ; Weiland v. Sell, 83 Kan. 229 , 109 Pac. 771 ; and see the cases cited in Note, 18 L.

1914(Shepard v. Pratt, 16 Kan. 209, 213 ; Beard v. Rotvland, 71 Kan. 873 , 81 Pac. 188 ; Weiland v. Sell, 83 Kan. 229 , 109 Pac. 771 ; and see the cases cited in Note, 18 L.

1914(Shepard v. Pratt, 16 Kan. 209, 213 ; Beard v. Rotvland, 71 Kan. 873 , 81 Pac. 188 ; Weiland v. Sell, 83 Kan. 229 , 109 Pac. 771 ; and see the cases cited in Note, 18 L.

1914(Shepard v. Pratt, 16 Kan. 209, 213 ; Beard v. Rotvland, 71 Kan. 873 , 81 Pac. 188 ; Weiland v. Sell, 83 Kan. 229 , 109 Pac. 771 ; and see the cases cited in Note, 18 L.

1896In the case of Neal v. Reynolds, 38 Kan. 432 , the amended pleading which was before the court was a substantial change of the claim or action of the plaintiff, and hence the court properly sustained the objection made against it.

1896Some of the language of the commissioner who prepared the opinion tends to sustain the view of the plaintiffs in error in these cases; but that decision, as well as the language of the commissioner, was urged upon the attention of the court in Beebe v. Carter, supra, and we then held that, when a party is legally brought into a case by constructive service, he is subject to the same rules as one upon whom personal service has been had.

1891The case of Hines v. City of Leavenworth, 3 Kas. 186 , is instructive, because of the change in the rule of apportionment during the progress of the improvement.