10 Kansas opinions name it 2 courts 2009–2022 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. Plummergreen2 sentences2022See State v. Plummer, 295 Kan. 156, 161 , 283 P.3d 202 (2012) ("[A]n instruction must always fairly and accurately state the applicable law, and an instruction that does not do so would be legally infirm."). 2022See State v. Plummer, 295 Kan. 156, 161 , 283 P.3d 202 (2012) ("[A]n instruction must always fairly and accurately state the applicable law, and an instruction that does not do so would be legally infirm."). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Wardgreen2 sentences2015Ward, 292 Kan. at 550 (explaining that abuse of discretion can occur in one of three ways—when the trial court makes an error of law; bases its decision on facts not supported by substantial competent evidence; or makes an arbitrary, fanciful, or unreasonable decision). 2015State v. Ward, 292 Kan. 541, 550 , 256 P.3d 801 (2011), cert. denied 132 S. Ct. 1594 (2012). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Kansas. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
State v. Longoria
green
2 sentences2020An abuse of discretion occurs "when the trial court makes an error of law; bases its decision on facts not supported by the evidence; or makes an arbitrary, fanciful, or unreasonable decision." State v. Longoria, 301 Kan. 489, 509 , 343 P.3d 1128 (2015). 2020An abuse of discretion occurs "when the trial court makes an error of law; bases its decision on facts not supported by the evidence; or makes an arbitrary, fanciful, or unreasonable decision." State v. Longoria, 301 Kan. 489, 509 , 343 P.3d 1128 (2015). | 4 | 2015–2020 |
State v. Gensler
green
2 sentences2020State v. Gensler, 308 Kan. 674 , 680, 423 P.3d 488 (2018). 2020State v. Gensler, 308 Kan. 674 , 680, 423 P.3d 488 (2018). | 2 | 2020–2020 |
State v. Carr
green
2 sentences2019K.S.A. 22-2616(1) directs a trial court to grant a defendant's motion to change venue if it "is satisfied that there exists in the county where the prosecution is pending so great a prejudice against the defendant that he cannot obtain a fair and impartial trial in that county." In determining whether these circumstances exist, the trial court considers the following nine factors: " '(1) the particular degree to which the publicity circulated throughout the community; (2) the degree to which the publicity or that of a like nature circulated to other areas to which venue could be changed; (3) t 2019K.S.A. 22-2616(1) directs a trial court to grant a defendant's motion to change venue if it "is satisfied that there exists in the county where the prosecution is pending so great a prejudice against the defendant that he cannot obtain a fair and impartial trial in that county." In determining whether these circumstances exist, the trial court considers the following nine factors: " '(1) the particular degree to which the publicity circulated throughout the community; (2) the degree to which the publicity or that of a like nature circulated to other areas to which venue could be changed; (3) t | 2 | 2017–2019 |
Kansas v. Kansas
green
2 sentences2019K.S.A. 22-2616(1) directs a trial court to grant a defendant's motion to change venue if it "is satisfied that there exists in the county where the prosecution is pending so great a prejudice against the defendant that he cannot obtain a fair and impartial trial in that county." In determining whether these circumstances exist, the trial court considers the following nine factors: " '(1) the particular degree to which the publicity circulated throughout the community; (2) the degree to which the publicity or that of a like nature circulated to other areas to which venue could be changed; (3) t 2019K.S.A. 22-2616(1) directs a trial court to grant a defendant's motion to change venue if it "is satisfied that there exists in the county where the prosecution is pending so great a prejudice against the defendant that he cannot obtain a fair and impartial trial in that county." In determining whether these circumstances exist, the trial court considers the following nine factors: " '(1) the particular degree to which the publicity circulated throughout the community; (2) the degree to which the publicity or that of a like nature circulated to other areas to which venue could be changed; (3) t | 2 | 2017–2019 |
State v. Bowen
green
1 sentence2017Bowen, 299 Kan. at 348 . | 1 | 2017–2017 |
Bingham v. United States
green
2 sentences2015State v. Ward, 292 Kan. 541, 550 , 256 P.3d 801 (2011), cert. denied 132 S. Ct. 1594 (2012). 2015State v. Ward, 292 Kan. 541, 550 , 256 P.3d 801 (2011), cert. denied 132 S. Ct. 1594 (2012). | 1 | 2015–2015 |
Alpha Medical Clinic v. Anderson
green
1 sentence2009However this court makes an exception where (1) a litigant, without a remedy on appeal, could be denied a legal right or privilege by the judge’s order; or (2) the petition presents an issue of great public importance and concern. 280 Kan. at 916 . | 1 | 2009–2009 |
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.