9 Kansas opinions name it 2 courts 1920–2026 3 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. Beckergreen1 sentence2026See State v. Becker, 311 Kan. 176 , 182, 459 P.3d 173 (2020). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Engelhardtgreen2 sentences2019In her dissent, Judge Arnold-Burger traced the history of the skip rule and correctly noted that we have often discussed the rule along with finding the evidence was insufficient to support the disputed instruction. 2016 WL 4262478 , at *16 (Arnold-Burger, J., dissenting); see, e.g., State v. Engelhardt , 280 Kan. 113 , 135-36, 119 P.3d 1148 (2005). 2019In her dissent, Judge Arnold-Burger traced the history of the skip rule and correctly noted that we have often discussed the rule along with finding the evidence was insufficient to support the disputed instruction. 2016 WL 4262478 , at *16 (Arnold-Burger, J., dissenting); see, e.g., State v. Engelhardt , 280 Kan. 113 , 135-36, 119 P.3d 1148 (2005). | 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. Raskie
green
1 sentence2021It stressed that because the jury also 7 received an instruction clearly stating that the State carried the burden of proof beyond a reasonable doubt, "the instructions in [Raskie's] case were accurate statements of the law and did not shift the burden of proof to Raskie." 293 Kan. at 922 . | 1 | 2021–2021 |
State v. Ward
green
2 sentences2021If the defendant made the jury instruction argument below, the court must apply the test and applicable degree of certainty set forth in State v. Ward, 292 Kan. 541 , Syl. ¶ 6, 256 P.3d 801 (2011). 2021If the defendant made the jury instruction argument below, the court must apply the test and applicable degree of certainty set forth in State v. Ward, 292 Kan. 541 , Syl. ¶ 6, 256 P.3d 801 (2011). | 1 | 2021–2021 |
Kansas Judicial Review v. Stout
green
2 sentences2020To determine our Supreme Court's intent, we must look to the plain language of the disputed rule. 287 Kan. at 460 . 2020If the plain language of the disputed rule is clear and unambiguous, then an appellate court must interpret the disputed rule in accordance with its plain language. 287 Kan. at 460 . 22 Here, Rule 2.02 is a specific rule regarding the form of a notice of appeal to the Kansas Court of Appeals. | 1 | 2020–2020 |
Amino Bros. v. Twin Caney Watershed (Joint) District No. 34
green
2 sentences1988In Amino Brothers Co. Inc. v. Twin Caney Watershed District, 206 Kan. 68 , 476 P.2d 228 (1970), our Supreme Court noted that sending a check upon the condition that it be accepted in full satisfaction of a disputed claim is an offer of settlement and that a creditor has the option of either accepting the check upon the condition on which it was sent or rejecting it. 1988In Amino Brothers Co. Inc. v. Twin Caney Watershed District, 206 Kan. 68 , 476 P.2d 228 (1970), our Supreme Court noted that sending a check upon the condition that it be accepted in full satisfaction of a disputed claim is an offer of settlement and that a creditor has the option of either accepting the check upon the condition on which it was sent or rejecting it. | 1 | 1988–1988 |
Richards v. Tiernan
neutral
2 sentences1979Richards v. Tiernan, 150 Kan. 116 , 91 P.2d 22 (1939). (4) An administrator or executor has the power to compromise a disputed claim against the estate, subject to the approval of the probate court either at the time the compromise settlement is entered into or on final settlement of his account. 1979Richards v. Tiernan, 150 Kan. 116 , 91 P.2d 22 (1939). (4) An administrator or executor has the power to compromise a disputed claim against the estate, subject to the approval of the probate court either at the time the compromise settlement is entered into or on final settlement of his account. | 1 | 1979–1979 |
Neely v. Thompson
neutral
2 sentences1923(Neely v. Thompson, 68 Kan. 193 , 75 Pac. 117 .) It is equally well settled that accord must precede satisfaction of a disputed claim. 1923(Neely v. Thompson, 68 Kan. 193 , 75 Pac. 117 .) It is equally well settled that accord must precede satisfaction of a disputed claim. | 1 | 1923–1923 |
Price v. First National Bank
neutral
2 sentences1920The numerous authorities cited by the defendant in support of the proposition that the existence of a dispute or controversy between parties is not a sufficient consideration to support a promise to pay money in settlement of it, where no valid demand for anything whatever exists in favor of the promisee (Price v. Bank, 62 Kan. 743, 754 , 64 Pac. 639 , and cases cited in the opinion) require little comment. 1920The numerous authorities cited by the defendant in support of the proposition that the existence of a dispute or controversy between parties is not a sufficient consideration to support a promise to pay money in settlement of it, where no valid demand for anything whatever exists in favor of the promisee (Price v. Bank, 62 Kan. 743, 754 , 64 Pac. 639 , and cases cited in the opinion) require little comment. | 1 | 1920–1920 |
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.