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.
12 Kansas opinions name it 2 courts 1979–2022 1 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. Kinggreen1 sentence2019Harris, 2016 WL 7325012 , at *8; see also King, 297 Kan. at 982 (a unanimity instruction was necessary unless the State elected the particular criminal act on which it relied, either explicitly or functionally). | 1 | 1 |
Gannon v. Stategreen2 sentences2016As noted above, we instructed the panel to apply our test to determine whether any remedial action taken by the legislature complied with the equity requirement of Article 6 "through structure and implementation." See 298 Kan. at 1198 . 2016As noted above, we instructed the panel to apply our test to determine whether any remedial action taken by the legislature complied with the equity requirement of Article 6 “through structure and implementation.” See 298 Kan. at 1198 . | 1 | 1 |
Unruh v. PURINA MILLS, LLCgreen2 sentences2016See Gannon I, 298 Kan. at 1179 (citing Unruh v. Purina Mills, 289 Kan. 1185, 1195-96 , 221 P.3d 1130 (2009) (appellate court accepts as true the evidence and all the reasonable inferences drawn from it which support the district courts findings). 2016See Gannon I, 298 Kan. at 1179 (citing Unruh v. Purina Mills, 289 Kan. 1185, 1195-96 , 221 P.3d 1130 (2009) (appellate court accepts as true the evidence and all the reasonable inferences drawn from it which support the district courts findings). | 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 Dennis
green
2 sentences2015Clear and convincing evidence is “ ‘evidence that causes the factfinder to believe that “tire truth of the facts asserted is highly probable.” ’ ” In re Lober, 288 Kan. 498, 505 , 204 P.3d 610 (2009) (quoting In re Dennis, 286 Kan. 708, 725 , 188 P.3d 1 [2008]). *583 Respondent was given adequate notice of the formal complaint, to which he filed an answer, and adequate notice of the hearing before the panel and the hearing before this court. 2015Clear and convincing evidence is “ ‘evidence that causes the factfinder to believe that “tire truth of the facts asserted is highly probable.” ’ ” In re Lober, 288 Kan. 498, 505 , 204 P.3d 610 (2009) (quoting In re Dennis, 286 Kan. 708, 725 , 188 P.3d 1 [2008]). *583 Respondent was given adequate notice of the formal complaint, to which he filed an answer, and adequate notice of the hearing before the panel and the hearing before this court. | 2 | 2014–2015 |
In re Lober
green
2 sentences2015Clear and convincing evidence is “ ‘evidence that causes the factfinder to believe that “tire truth of the facts asserted is highly probable.” ’ ” In re Lober, 288 Kan. 498, 505 , 204 P.3d 610 (2009) (quoting In re Dennis, 286 Kan. 708, 725 , 188 P.3d 1 [2008]). *583 Respondent was given adequate notice of the formal complaint, to which he filed an answer, and adequate notice of the hearing before the panel and the hearing before this court. 2015Clear and convincing evidence is “ ‘evidence that causes the factfinder to believe that “tire truth of the facts asserted is highly probable.” ’ ” In re Lober, 288 Kan. 498, 505 , 204 P.3d 610 (2009) (quoting In re Dennis, 286 Kan. 708, 725 , 188 P.3d 1 [2008]). *583 Respondent was given adequate notice of the formal complaint, to which he filed an answer, and adequate notice of the hearing before the panel and the hearing before this court. | 2 | 2014–2015 |
Fawcett v. Oil Producers, Inc. of Kansas
green
1 sentence2022CONCLUSION In Fawcett I, this court held that under the leases at issue, OPIK satisfied its duty to market the gas when the gas was sold at the wellhead. 302 Kan. at 365 . | 1 | 2022–2022 |
Garetson Brothers v. American Warrior, Inc.
green
2 sentences2019The panel hearing American Warrior's interlocutory appeal ultimately held that temporary injunctive relief was an appropriate remedy because under the circumstances the district court did not abuse its discretion by ordering American Warrior to stop pumping water from the junior wells during the pendency of the action. 51 Kan. 2019App. 2d at 392 , 347 P.3d 687 . | 1 | 2019–2019 |
In re the Marriage of Traster
green
2 sentences2014It also determined the district court record was sufficient to allow the panel to apply its test without remand for further factual findings. 48 Kan. 2014It also determined the district court record was sufficient to allow the panel to apply its test without remand for further factual findings. 48 Kan. | 1 | 2014–2014 |
State v. Gray
neutral
1 sentence2013The panel then held this error required reversal and granted a new trial because “to hold otherwise would ignore the importance of the requirements of unanimity and finality with respect to jury verdicts.” 45 Kan. | 1 | 2013–2013 |
State v. Dixon
green
2 sentences2010However, we agree with the panel that the error was harmless, i.e, it did not affect the outcome of the trial. 289 Kan. 46 . 2010However, we agree with the panel that the error was harmless, i.e., it did not affect the outcome of the trial. 289 Kan. 46 , 209 P.3d 675 . | 1 | 2010–2010 |
State v. Phelps
green
2 sentences2001The respondent cites State v. Phelps, 226 Kan. 371, 380 , 598 P.2d 180 (1979), cert. denied 444 U.S. 1045 (1980), where we said: “The panel hearing is a type of discovery, with lenient rules to permit respondent to present any defense he might have to the complaint.” However, we rejected Phelps’ claim that the panel denied him due process by denying his motion for discovery. 2001The respondent cites State v. Phelps, 226 Kan. 371, 380 , 598 P.2d 180 (1979), cert. denied 444 U.S. 1045 (1980), where we said: “The panel hearing is a type of discovery, with lenient rules to permit respondent to present any defense he might have to the complaint.” However, we rejected Phelps’ claim that the panel denied him due process by denying his motion for discovery. | 1 | 2001–2001 |
Philadelphia Food Store Employers' Labor Council v. Retail Clerks International Ass'n, Local 1349
green
1 sentence2001The respondent cites State v. Phelps, 226 Kan. 371, 380 , 598 P.2d 180 (1979), cert. denied 444 U.S. 1045 (1980), where we said: “The panel hearing is a type of discovery, with lenient rules to permit respondent to present any defense he might have to the complaint.” However, we rejected Phelps’ claim that the panel denied him due process by denying his motion for discovery. | 1 | 2001–2001 |
In the Matter of Murray
green
2 sentences2001We noted with approval Matter of Murray, 266 Ind. 221 , 362 N.E.2d 128 (1977), an Indiana case holding denial of discovery in a disciplinary proceeding is not an unconstitutional denial of due process. 226 Kan. at 380. 2001We noted with approval Matter of Murray, 266 Ind. 221 , 362 N.E.2d 128 (1977), an Indiana case holding denial of discovery in a disciplinary proceeding is not an unconstitutional denial of due process. 226 Kan. at 380. | 1 | 2001–2001 |
In re Jantz
green
1 sentence1998His practice is growing, indicating that he is accepted by the members of the bench and bar as well as the residents of the community where he resides and practices.” 243 Kan. at 774-75 . | 1 | 1998–1998 |
Brotsky v. State Bar
green
2 sentences1979Respondent relies upon Brotsky v. State Bar, 57 Cal. 2d 287, 368 P.2d 697 , 19 Cal. Rptr. 153 (1962), to support his claim. 1979Respondent relies upon Brotsky v. State Bar, 57 Cal. 2d 287, 368 P.2d 697 , 19 Cal. Rptr. 153 (1962), to support his claim. | 1 | 1979–1979 |
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.