84 Kansas opinions name it 2 courts 1990–2025 34 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 |
|---|---|---|
Sola-Morales v. Stategreen2 sentences2022To establish a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel, Carter was required to establish: "(1) the performance of defense counsel was deficient under the totality of the circumstances, and (2) prejudice, i.e., that there is a reasonable probability the jury would have reached a different result absent the deficient performance. [Citation omitted.]" Sola-Morales v. State, 6 300 Kan. 875, 882 , 335 P.3d 1162 (2014) (relying on Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 687 , 104 S. Ct. 2052 , 80 L. 2022To establish a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel, Carter was required to establish: "(1) the performance of defense counsel was deficient under the totality of the circumstances, and (2) prejudice, i.e., that there is a reasonable probability the jury would have reached a different result absent the deficient performance. [Citation omitted.]" Sola-Morales v. State, 6 300 Kan. 875, 882 , 335 P.3d 1162 (2014) (relying on Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 687 , 104 S. Ct. 2052 , 80 L. | 12 | 51 |
Strickland v. Washingtongreen2 sentences2025"To prevail on a claim of ineffective assistance of trial counsel, a criminal defendant must establish (1) that the performance of defense counsel was deficient under the totality of the circumstances, and (2) prejudice, i.e., that there is a reasonable probability the jury would have reached a different result absent the deficient performance." State v. Salary, 309 Kan. 479, 483 , 437 P.3d 953 (2019). "[T]here is no reason for a court deciding an ineffective assistance claim to . . . address both components of the inquiry if the defendant makes an insufficient showing on one." Strickland, 466 2023To prevail on a claim of ineffective assistance of trial counsel, a criminal defendant must establish (1) that the performance of defense counsel was deficient under the totality of the circumstances, and (2) that the deficient performance prejudiced the defendant. 313 Kan. at 526. 10 To demonstrate deficient performance under the first prong, "'the defendant must show that counsel's representation fell below an objective standard of reasonableness.'" 313 Kan. at 485 (quoting Strickland, 466 U.S. at 688 ). | 5 | 55 |
State v. Salarygreen2 sentences2025"To prevail on a claim of ineffective assistance of trial counsel, a criminal defendant must establish (1) that the performance of defense counsel was deficient under the totality of the circumstances, and (2) prejudice, i.e., that there is a reasonable probability the jury would have reached a different result absent the deficient performance." State v. Salary, 309 Kan. 479, 483 , 437 P.3d 953 (2019). "[T]here is no reason for a court deciding an ineffective assistance claim to . . . address both components of the inquiry if the defendant makes an insufficient showing on one." Strickland, 466 2025"To prevail on a claim of ineffective assistance of trial counsel, a criminal defendant must establish (1) that the performance of defense counsel was deficient under the totality of the circumstances, and (2) prejudice, i.e., that there is a reasonable probability the jury would have reached a different result absent the deficient performance." State v. Salary, 309 Kan. 479, 483 , 437 P.3d 953 (2019). "[T]here is no reason for a court deciding an ineffective assistance claim to . . . address both components of the inquiry if the defendant makes an insufficient showing on one." Strickland, 466 | 2 | 24 |
Fuller v. Stategreen2 sentences2022Here, to prevail on a claim of ineffective assistance for deficient performance, "'a criminal defendant must establish (1) the performance of defense counsel was deficient under the totality of the circumstances, and (2) prejudice, i.e., that there is a reasonable probability the jury would have reached a different result absent the deficient performance.'" Fuller v. State, 303 Kan. 478, 486 , 363 P.3d 373 (2015). 2022Here, to prevail on a claim of ineffective assistance for deficient performance, "'a criminal defendant must establish (1) the performance of defense counsel was deficient under the totality of the circumstances, and (2) prejudice, i.e., that there is a reasonable probability the jury would have reached a different result absent the deficient performance.'" Fuller v. State, 303 Kan. 478, 486 , 363 P.3d 373 (2015). | 2 | 4 |
Montgomery v. Futuristic Foods, Inc.green1 sentence2018See Montgomery v. Futuristic Foods, Inc. , 66 A.D.2d 64 , 411 N.Y.S.2d 371 (1978). | 1 | 1 |
Felty v. Feltygreen1 sentence2018See Montgomery v. Futuristic Foods, Inc. , 66 A.D.2d 64 , 411 N.Y.S.2d 371 (1978). | 1 | 1 |
Jenkins v. Stategreen2 sentences2004Later, in Jenkins v. State, 403 S.E.2d 859, 861 (Ga. App. 1991), the court determined that where a medical facility refused to perform the test and the defendant failed to select another facility to be taken to, the police officer had afforded the defendant a reasonable opportunity to have an additional test performed and it was not the duiy of the police officer to insure the performance of the test. 2004Later, in Jenkins v. State, 403 S.E.2d 859, 861 (Ga. App. 1991), the court determined that where a medical facility refused to perform the test and the defendant failed to select another facility to be taken to, the police officer had afforded the defendant a reasonable opportunity to have an additional test performed and it was not the duiy of the police officer to insure the performance of the test. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Kansas. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Bose Corp. v. Consumers Union of United States, Inc.
green
2 sentences2021Ed. 2d 674 , reh. denied 467 U.S. 1267 [1984]). 2021Ed. 2d 674 , reh. denied 467 U.S. 1267 [1984]); Harris v. State, 288 Kan. 414, 416 , 204 P.3d 557 (2009). | 9 | 2018–2021 |
Swenson v. State
green
2 sentences2022Swenson, 284 Kan. 931 , Syl. ¶ 3. 13 "To prevail on a claim of ineffective assistance of trial counsel, a criminal defendant must establish (1) that the performance of defense counsel was deficient under the totality of the circumstances and (2) prejudice." State v. Salary, 309 Kan. 479, 483 , 437 P.3d 953 (2019); see Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 687 , 104 S. Ct. 2052 , 80 L. 2020When considering a K.S.A. 60-1507 motion, the district court's obligation is to hold an evidentiary hearing and make findings of fact and conclusions of law with respect thereto, "[u]nless the motion and the files and records of the case conclusively show the [movant] is entitled to no relief." K.S.A. 2019 Supp. 60-1507(b); Supreme Court Rule 183(f), (j). "[A] movant has the burden to prove his or her K.S.A. 60-1507 motion warrants an evidentiary hearing; the movant must make more than conclusory contentions and must state an evidentiary basis in support of the claims or an evidentiary basis m | 2 | 2020–2022 |
Dexter v. Brake
green
1 sentence2022When discussing the doctrine of substantial performance, this court has noted that it is "'intended to protect the right to compensation of those who have performed in all material and substantive particulars, so that their right to compensation may not be forfeited by reason of mere technical, inadvertent, or unimportant omissions or defects.'" 46 Kan. | 1 | 2022–2022 |
State v. Butler
green
2 sentences2021State v. Butler, 307 Kan. 831, 853 , 416 P.3d 116 (2018). "[To] prevail on a claim of ineffective assistance of trial counsel, a criminal defendant must establish (1) that the performance of defense counsel was deficient under the totality of the circumstances, and (2) prejudice, i.e., that there is a reasonable probability that the jury would have reached a different result absent the deficient performance. 2021State v. Butler, 307 Kan. 831, 853 , 416 P.3d 116 (2018). "[To] prevail on a claim of ineffective assistance of trial counsel, a criminal defendant must establish (1) that the performance of defense counsel was deficient under the totality of the circumstances, and (2) prejudice, i.e., that there is a reasonable probability that the jury would have reached a different result absent the deficient performance. | 1 | 2021–2021 |
Harris v. State
green
2 sentences2021Ed. 2d 674 , reh. denied 467 U.S. 1267 [1984]); Harris v. State, 288 Kan. 414, 416 , 204 P.3d 557 (2009). 2021Ed. 2d 674 , reh. denied 467 U.S. 1267 [1984]); Harris v. State, 288 Kan. 414, 416 , 204 P.3d 557 (2009). | 1 | 2021–2021 |
Beauclair v. State
green
1 sentence2020Beauclair v. State, 308 Kan. 284 , 293, 419 P.3d 1180 (2018). 3 To prevail on a claim of ineffective assistance of trial counsel, a criminal defendant is required to establish (1) that the performance of defense counsel was deficient under the totality of the circumstances, and (2) that the deficient performance prejudiced the defendant. | 1 | 2020–2020 |
State v. Galaviz
green
2 sentences2020The purpose of this guarantee is to "'ensure that criminal defendants receive a fair trial.'" State v. Galaviz, 296 Kan. 168, 174 , 291 P.3d 62 (2012). 9 To prevail on a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel, the movant needs to show "(1) that the performance of defense counsel was deficient under the totality of the circumstances, and (2) prejudice, i.e., that there is a reasonable probability the jury would have reached a different result absent the deficient performance. [Citations omitted.]" State v. Salary, 309 Kan. 479, 483 , 437 P.3d 953 (2019); see Strickland v. Washington, 466 U. 2020The purpose of this guarantee is to "'ensure that criminal defendants receive a fair trial.'" State v. Galaviz, 296 Kan. 168, 174 , 291 P.3d 62 (2012). 9 To prevail on a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel, the movant needs to show "(1) that the performance of defense counsel was deficient under the totality of the circumstances, and (2) prejudice, i.e., that there is a reasonable probability the jury would have reached a different result absent the deficient performance. [Citations omitted.]" State v. Salary, 309 Kan. 479, 483 , 437 P.3d 953 (2019); see Strickland v. Washington, 466 U. | 1 | 2020–2020 |
State v. Davis
green
2 sentences2020So to prevail on this claim, McGill needed to show "(1) that the performance of defense counsel was deficient under the totality of the circumstances, and (2) prejudice, i.e., that there is a reasonable probability the jury would have reached a different result absent the deficient performance." State v. Salary, 309 Kan. 479, 483 , 437 P.3d 953 (2019). 9 On this point, McGill also references State v. Davis, 277 Kan. 309, 314 , 85 P.3d 1164 (2004), asserting that "[t]o prove deficiency of counsel, the movant must show that trial counsel made errors so serious that counsel's performance deprived 2020So to prevail on this claim, McGill needed to show "(1) that the performance of defense counsel was deficient under the totality of the circumstances, and (2) prejudice, i.e., that there is a reasonable probability the jury would have reached a different result absent the deficient performance." State v. Salary, 309 Kan. 479, 483 , 437 P.3d 953 (2019). 9 On this point, McGill also references State v. Davis, 277 Kan. 309, 314 , 85 P.3d 1164 (2004), asserting that "[t]o prove deficiency of counsel, the movant must show that trial counsel made errors so serious that counsel's performance deprived | 1 | 2020–2020 |
Bledsoe v. State
green
2 sentences2015State v. Bledsoe, 283 Kan. 81, 90 , 150 P.3d 868 (2007); see Strickland, 466 U.S. at 687 . 2015State v. Bledsoe, 283 Kan. 81, 90 , 150 P.3d 868 (2007); see Strickland, 466 U.S. at 687 . | 1 | 2015–2015 |
Cambridge Technologies, Inc. v. Argyle Industries, Inc.
green
1 sentence2012Cambridge Tech. v. Argyle, 146 Md. | 1 | 2012–2012 |
Almena State Bank v. Enfield
green
1 sentence2010The court declared: “ ‘Substantial performance is shown when the following circumstances are established by the evidence: (1) The party made an honest endeavor in good faith to perform its part of the contract, (2) the results of the endeavor are beneficial to the other party, and (3) such benefits are retained by the other party.’ [Citations omitted.]” 24 Kan. | 1 | 2010–2010 |
American Food Purveyors, Inc. v. Lindsay Meats, Inc.
green
1 sentence2004On appeal, the court held that the defendant was provided a reasonable opportunity for an additional test, stating: “[I]t is the duty of a police officer not to prevent a defendant from exercising his right to an independent test, but not his duty to insure the performance of such test.” 265 S.E.2d 325 . | 1 | 2004–2004 |
Phoenix Mutual Life Insurance v. Adams
green
1 sentence1998Whether substantial compliance exists, therefore, is necessarily dependent on the specific facts of a given case.” 828 F. Supp. at 388 . | 1 | 1998–1998 |
Leona Cookson v. Western Oil Fields, Inc., a Colorado Corporation
neutral
1 sentence1998When all of the grievances are considered, separately and together, they present no more than technical variances from the letter of the contract, and courts will not deny enforcement in the face of a showing of substantial performance and in the absence of a detriment. [Citation omitted.]’ “It is apparent here that the alleged breach of the contract could in no way be said to go to the ‘essence’ of the agreement . . . .” 465 F.2d at 462 . | 1 | 1998–1998 |
State v. Leroy
green
1 sentence1992This holding is consistent with our decision in State v. Leroy, 15 Kan. | 1 | 1992–1992 |
Baldridge v. Centgraf
neutral
2 sentences1990Baldridge v. Centgraf, 82 Kan. 240 , Syl. ¶ 1, 108 Pac. 83 (1910). 1990Baldridge v. Centgraf, 82 Kan. 240 , Syl. ¶ 1, 108 Pac. 83 (1910). | 1 | 1990–1990 |
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.