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 1989–2022 2 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. Fleminggreen1 sentence2022See State v. Fleming, 308 Kan. 689 , 695, 423 P.3d 506 (2018) (concluding invited error precluded review of asserted jury instruction error on facts presented). | 1 | 1 |
Makthepharak v. Stategreen2 sentences2019See Makthepharak v. State , 298 Kan. 573 , 576, 314 P.3d 876 (2013) (when presented with motion to correct illegal sentence, district court should conduct initial examination of the motion to determine if it raises substantial issues of law or fact). 2019See Makthepharak v. State , 298 Kan. 573 , 576, 314 P.3d 876 (2013) (when presented with motion to correct illegal sentence, district court should conduct initial examination of the motion to determine if it raises substantial issues of law or fact). | 1 | 1 |
Rhoten v. Dicksongreen1 sentence2011See Rhoten, 290 Kan. at 106 . | 1 | 1 |
State v. Crowgreen2 sentences2009See Crow, 266 Kan. at 699, 704-05 . 2009See Crow, 266 Kan. at 699, 704-05 . | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Kansas. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Crawford v. Washington
green
2 sentences2009This reasoning, grounded on the Roberts test, was undercut by Crawford, 541 U.S. 36 . 2009This reasoning, grounded on the Roberts test, was undercut by Crawford, 541 U.S. 36 . | 2 | 2006–2009 |
State v. Butler
green
2 sentences2022Appellate courts consider "'jury instructions as a whole, without focusing on any single instruction, in order to determine whether they properly and fairly state the applicable law or whether it is reasonable to conclude that they could have misled the jury.' [Citation omitted.]" State v. Butler, 307 Kan. 831, 843 , 416 P.3d 116 (2018). 2022Appellate courts consider "'jury instructions as a whole, without focusing on any single instruction, in order to determine whether they properly and fairly state the applicable law or whether it is reasonable to conclude that they could have misled the jury.' [Citation omitted.]" State v. Butler, 307 Kan. 831, 843 , 416 P.3d 116 (2018). | 1 | 2022–2022 |
State v. Roberts
green
1 sentence2021In the case before us, the district court made Barrett's restitution obligation "collectible immediately and while in custody." This meets the Roberts test that any restitution payment plan establish the amount of restitution owed and how it is to be repaid. 57 Kan. | 1 | 2021–2021 |
Wimbley v. State
green
2 sentences2019"When the district court summarily denies a K.S.A. 60-1507 motion, an appellate court conducts de novo review to determine whether the motion, files, and records of the case conclusively establish that the movant is not entitled to any relief." Wimbley v. State , 292 Kan. 796 , 804, 275 P.3d 35 (2011). 2019"When the district court summarily denies a K.S.A. 60-1507 motion, an appellate court conducts de novo review to determine whether the motion, files, and records of the case conclusively establish that the movant is not entitled to any relief." Wimbley v. State , 292 Kan. 796 , 804, 275 P.3d 35 (2011). | 1 | 2019–2019 |
State v. Cash
green
2 sentences2012The district court denied Roberts’ motion and sentenced him to a life sentence with a mandatory minimum of 25 years in prison along with lifetime “postrelease supervision.” But see State v. Cash, 293 Kan. 326 , Syl. ¶ 2, 263 P.3d 786 (2011). 2012The district court denied Roberts’ motion and sentenced him to a life sentence with a mandatory minimum of 25 years in prison along with lifetime “postrelease supervision.” But see State v. Cash, 293 Kan. 326 , Syl. ¶ 2, 263 P.3d 786 (2011). | 1 | 2012–2012 |
State v. Roberts
neutral
1 sentence2011It then pointed out that, although before dismissing the criminal complaint in the present case the district court made the factual finding that the drug, generic Lortab, was a schedule III controlled substance, the district court heard no witness testimony and ruled “solely based upon Roberts’ motion to dismiss and the State’s response.” Roberts, 2009 WL 744410, at *2 . | 1 | 2011–2011 |
State v. Bailey
green
2 sentences2006This court described the Roberts analysis in State v. Bailey, 263 Kan. 685, 692-93 , 952 P.2d 1289 (1998) (quoting Bratt, 250 Kan. 264 , Syl. ¶ 1, 824 P.2d 983 [1992]): "`The Confrontation Clause operates in two ways when determining the admissibility of hearsay statements. 2006This court described the Roberts analysis in State v. Bailey, 263 Kan. 685, 692-93 , 952 P.2d 1289 (1998) (quoting Bratt, 250 Kan. 264 , Syl. ¶ 1, 824 P.2d 983 [1992]): "`The Confrontation Clause operates in two ways when determining the admissibility of hearsay statements. | 1 | 2006–2006 |
State v. Bratt
green
2 sentences2006This court described the Roberts analysis in State v. Bailey, 263 Kan. 685, 692-93 , 952 P.2d 1289 (1998) (quoting Bratt, 250 Kan. 264 , Syl. ¶ 1, 824 P.2d 983 [1992]): "`The Confrontation Clause operates in two ways when determining the admissibility of hearsay statements. 2006This court described the Roberts analysis in State v. Bailey, 263 Kan. 685, 692-93 , 952 P.2d 1289 (1998) (quoting Bratt, 250 Kan. 264 , Syl. ¶ 1, 824 P.2d 983 [1992]): "`The Confrontation Clause operates in two ways when determining the admissibility of hearsay statements. | 1 | 2006–2006 |
Helms v. Tollie Freightways, Inc.
green
2 sentences2000The Court of Appeals, however, said that equating the risk of malpractice in treating the original injury with the risk of a vehicular accident when traveling to or from the physician’s office “stretches the Roberts doctrine too far.” 20 Kan. 2000The Court of Appeals, however, said that equating the risk of malpractice in treating the original injury with the risk of a vehicular accident when traveling to or from the physician’s office “stretches the Roberts doctrine too far.” 20 Kan. | 1 | 2000–2000 |
Wildermuth v. State
green
2 sentences1989In Vincent , the Arizona Supreme Court, in reference to the finding that a child would be so traumatized by face-to-face testimony, said: “Like Maryland, we conclude that such a finding is ‘tantamount to a finding of unavailability in the Roberts sense,’ Wildermuth, 310 Md. at 519 , 530 A.2d at 286 , and would justify the substitution of the videotaped procedure established by A.R.S. § 13-4251.” State v. Vincent, 26 Ariz. Adv. 1989In Vincent , the Arizona Supreme Court, in reference to the finding that a child would be so traumatized by face-to-face testimony, said: “Like Maryland, we conclude that such a finding is ‘tantamount to a finding of unavailability in the Roberts sense,’ Wildermuth, 310 Md. at 519 , 530 A.2d at 286 , and would justify the substitution of the videotaped procedure established by A.R.S. § 13-4251.” State v. Vincent, 26 Ariz. Adv. | 1 | 1989–1989 |
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.