11 Kansas opinions name it 2 courts 1985–2024 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 |
|---|---|---|
| No positive-treatment citations attached to this issue in Kansas. | ||
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Kansas. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Chamberlain v. State
green
2 sentences2022Ed. 2d 674 (1984), that "the benchmark for judging any claim of ineffectiveness must be whether counsel's conduct so undermined the proper functioning of the adversarial process that the trial cannot be relied on as having produced a just result." 236 Kan. at 656 . 1999State v. Sperry, 267 Kan. 287, 297 , 978 P.2d 933 (1999). “ ‘The Sixth Amendment right to counsel is the right to the effective assistance of counsel, and the benchmark for judging any claim of ineffectiveness must be whether counsel’s conduct so undermined the proper functioning of the adversarial process that the trial cannot be relied on as having produced a just result.’ ” State v. Brown, 266 Kan. 563, 577 , 973 P.2d 773 (1999) (quoting Chamberlain v. State, 236 Kan. 650 , Syl. ¶ 2, 694 P.2d 468 [1985]). | 4 | 1993–2022 |
Strickland v. Washington
green
2 sentences2008Ed. 2d 674 , 104 S. Ct. 2052 (1984): “The benchmark for judging any claim of ineffectiveness must be whether counsel’s conduct so undermined the proper functioning of the adversarial process that the trial cannot be relied on as having produced a just result.” Stated more directly, “the purpose ... of the Sixth Amendment ... is simply to ensure that criminal defendants receive a fair trial.” 466 U.S. at 689 . 2008Ed. 2d 674 , 104 S. Ct. 2052 (1984): “The benchmark for judging any claim of ineffectiveness must be whether counsel’s conduct so undermined the proper functioning of the adversarial process that the trial cannot be relied on as having produced a just result.” Stated more directly, “the purpose ... of the Sixth Amendment ... is simply to ensure that criminal defendants receive a fair trial.” 466 U.S. at 689 . | 3 | 1985–2008 |
Edgar v. State
green
1 sentence2024"The benchmark for judging any claim of ineffectiveness must be whether counsel's conduct so undermined the proper functioning of the adversarial process that the trial cannot be relied on as having produced a just result." Edgar, 294 Kan. 828 , Syl. ¶ 1. | 1 | 2024–2024 |
Crowther v. State
green
2 sentences2018"The benchmark for judging any claim of ineffectiveness must be whether counsel's conduct so undermined the proper functioning of the adversarial process that the trial cannot be relied on as having produced a just result." Crowther v. State , 45 Kan. 2018App. 2d 559 , 563-64, 249 P.3d 1214 (2011). | 1 | 2018–2018 |
Bledsoe v. State
green
2 sentences2011Bledsoe v. State, 283 Kan. 81, 90 , 150 P.3d 868 (2007). 2011Bledsoe v. State, 283 Kan. 81, 90 , 150 P.3d 868 (2007). | 1 | 2011–2011 |
State v. Rice
green
2 sentences2003The benchmark for judging any claim of ineffectiveness must be whether counsel’s conduct so undermined the proper functioning of the adversarial process that the trial cannot be relied on as having produced a just result.” State v. Rice, 261 Kan. 567, 568 , Syl. ¶ 12, 932 P.2d 981 (1997). 2003The benchmark for judging any claim of ineffectiveness must be whether counsel’s conduct so undermined the proper functioning of the adversarial process that the trial cannot be relied on as having produced a just result.” State v. Rice, 261 Kan. 567, 568 , Syl. ¶ 12, 932 P.2d 981 (1997). | 1 | 2003–2003 |
State v. Sperry
green
2 sentences1999State v. Sperry, 267 Kan. 287, 297 , 978 P.2d 933 (1999). “ ‘The Sixth Amendment right to counsel is the right to the effective assistance of counsel, and the benchmark for judging any claim of ineffectiveness must be whether counsel’s conduct so undermined the proper functioning of the adversarial process that the trial cannot be relied on as having produced a just result.’ ” State v. Brown, 266 Kan. 563, 577 , 973 P.2d 773 (1999) (quoting Chamberlain v. State, 236 Kan. 650 , Syl. ¶ 2, 694 P.2d 468 [1985]). 1999State v. Sperry, 267 Kan. 287, 297 , 978 P.2d 933 (1999). “ ‘The Sixth Amendment right to counsel is the right to the effective assistance of counsel, and the benchmark for judging any claim of ineffectiveness must be whether counsel’s conduct so undermined the proper functioning of the adversarial process that the trial cannot be relied on as having produced a just result.’ ” State v. Brown, 266 Kan. 563, 577 , 973 P.2d 773 (1999) (quoting Chamberlain v. State, 236 Kan. 650 , Syl. ¶ 2, 694 P.2d 468 [1985]). | 1 | 1999–1999 |
State v. Brown
green
2 sentences1999State v. Sperry, 267 Kan. 287, 297 , 978 P.2d 933 (1999). “ ‘The Sixth Amendment right to counsel is the right to the effective assistance of counsel, and the benchmark for judging any claim of ineffectiveness must be whether counsel’s conduct so undermined the proper functioning of the adversarial process that the trial cannot be relied on as having produced a just result.’ ” State v. Brown, 266 Kan. 563, 577 , 973 P.2d 773 (1999) (quoting Chamberlain v. State, 236 Kan. 650 , Syl. ¶ 2, 694 P.2d 468 [1985]). 1999State v. Sperry, 267 Kan. 287, 297 , 978 P.2d 933 (1999). “ ‘The Sixth Amendment right to counsel is the right to the effective assistance of counsel, and the benchmark for judging any claim of ineffectiveness must be whether counsel’s conduct so undermined the proper functioning of the adversarial process that the trial cannot be relied on as having produced a just result.’ ” State v. Brown, 266 Kan. 563, 577 , 973 P.2d 773 (1999) (quoting Chamberlain v. State, 236 Kan. 650 , Syl. ¶ 2, 694 P.2d 468 [1985]). | 1 | 1999–1999 |
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.