9 Kansas opinions name it 1 courts 1908–1965 0 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. Pagegreen2 sentences1928See, also, State v. Wood, 118 Kan. 58 , 233 Pac. 1029 .) “In a murder case, where there is some evidence which tends to show a killing in self-defense, and that previous threats had been made by the deceased against the defendant, but the defendant makes no request for special instructions, and the court instructs the jury as to the burden of proof and in general terms as to the law of self-defense, it is not error to fail to expand the instructions on those subjects so as to apply them to the facts which the defendant claims the evidence shows.” (State v. Page, 80 Kan. 389 , syl., 102 Pac. 78 1928See, also, State v. Wood, 118 Kan. 58 , 233 Pac. 1029 .) “In a murder case, where there is some evidence which tends to show a killing in self-defense, and that previous threats had been made by the deceased against the defendant, but the defendant makes no request for special instructions, and the court instructs the jury as to the burden of proof and in general terms as to the law of self-defense, it is not error to fail to expand the instructions on those subjects so as to apply them to the facts which the defendant claims the evidence shows.” (State v. Page, 80 Kan. 389 , syl., 102 Pac. 78 | 1 | 1 |
State v. Woodgreen2 sentences1928See, also, State v. Wood, 118 Kan. 58 , 233 Pac. 1029 .) “In a murder case, where there is some evidence which tends to show a killing in self-defense, and that previous threats had been made by the deceased against the defendant, but the defendant makes no request for special instructions, and the court instructs the jury as to the burden of proof and in general terms as to the law of self-defense, it is not error to fail to expand the instructions on those subjects so as to apply them to the facts which the defendant claims the evidence shows.” (State v. Page, 80 Kan. 389 , syl., 102 Pac. 78 1928See, also, State v. Wood, 118 Kan. 58 , 233 Pac. 1029 .) “In a murder case, where there is some evidence which tends to show a killing in self-defense, and that previous threats had been made by the deceased against the defendant, but the defendant makes no request for special instructions, and the court instructs the jury as to the burden of proof and in general terms as to the law of self-defense, it is not error to fail to expand the instructions on those subjects so as to apply them to the facts which the defendant claims the evidence shows.” (State v. Page, 80 Kan. 389 , syl., 102 Pac. 78 | 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. Smith
green
2 sentences1965S. 1949, 62-1447; State v. Smith, 161 Kan. 230 , 167 P. 2d 594 ), a party who desires an instruction upon some particular question not included in the general charge should request that the trial judge give such instruction. 1965S. 1949, 62-1447; State v. Smith, 161 Kan. 230 , 167 P. 2d 594 ), a party who desires an instruction upon some particular question not included in the general charge should request that the trial judge give such instruction. | 3 | 1952–1965 |
State v. Ross
neutral
2 sentences1928“Where the general charge of the court fairly presents the case to the jury, a party who desires an instruction upon some particular question should request it, and cannot predicate error upon the omission if he has not done so.” (State v. Ross, 77 Kan. 341 , syl. ¶ 2, 94 Pac. 270 . 1928“Where the general charge of the court fairly presents the case to the jury, a party who desires an instruction upon some particular question should request it, and cannot predicate error upon the omission if he has not done so.” (State v. Ross, 77 Kan. 341 , syl. ¶ 2, 94 Pac. 270 . | 3 | 1923–1928 |
State v. Shaw
neutral
2 sentences1923Where the general charge of the court fairly presents the case to the jury, a party who desires an instruction upon a particular question should request it and cannot predicate error upon the omission if he has not done so. [The State v. Ross, 77 Kan. 341 , 94 Pac. 270 ; The State v. Shaw, 79 Kan. 396 , 100 Pac. 78 .) The instructions given by the court, when considered together, fairly presented the case to the jury for consideration. 1923Where the general charge of the court fairly presents the case to the jury, a party who desires an instruction upon a particular question should request it and cannot predicate error upon the omission if he has not done so. [The State v. Ross, 77 Kan. 341 , 94 Pac. 270 ; The State v. Shaw, 79 Kan. 396 , 100 Pac. 78 .) The instructions given by the court, when considered together, fairly presented the case to the jury for consideration. | 2 | 1923–1925 |
State v. Anderson
neutral
2 sentences1956It was there held: “A party who desires an instruction upon some particular question not included in the general charge, should request the presiding judge to give the same; but where no such request is made, and the case is fairly presented to the jury, he cannot afterward complain that the instruction was not given.” For a more recent statement of the rule, see State v. Anderson, 172 Kan. 402 , 241 P. 2d 742 . 1956It was there held: “A party who desires an instruction upon some particular question not included in the general charge, should request the presiding judge to give the same; but where no such request is made, and the case is fairly presented to the jury, he cannot afterward complain that the instruction was not given.” For a more recent statement of the rule, see State v. Anderson, 172 Kan. 402 , 241 P. 2d 742 . | 1 | 1956–1956 |
Asbell v. Aldrich
neutral
1 sentence1923(Hamilton v. Railway Co., 95 Kan. 353 , 147 Pac. 1126 ; Murphy v. Gas & Oil Co., 96 Kan. 321 , 150 Pac. 581 , and cases cited; Warders v. Railroad Co., 105 Kan. 4 , 181 Pac. 599 ; 3 C. | 1 | 1923–1923 |
Hamilton v. Atchison, Topeka & Santa Fe Railway Co.
green
1 sentence1923(Hamilton v. Railway Co., 95 Kan. 353 , 147 Pac. 1126 ; Murphy v. Gas & Oil Co., 96 Kan. 321 , 150 Pac. 581 , and cases cited; Warders v. Railroad Co., 105 Kan. 4 , 181 Pac. 599 ; 3 C. | 1 | 1923–1923 |
Murphy v. Ludowici Gas & Oil Co.
neutral
2 sentences1923(Hamilton v. Railway Co., 95 Kan. 353 , 147 Pac. 1126 ; Murphy v. Gas & Oil Co., 96 Kan. 321 , 150 Pac. 581 , and cases cited; Warders v. Railroad Co., 105 Kan. 4 , 181 Pac. 599 ; 3 C. 1923(Hamilton v. Railway Co., 95 Kan. 353 , 147 Pac. 1126 ; Murphy v. Gas & Oil Co., 96 Kan. 321 , 150 Pac. 581 , and cases cited; Warders v. Railroad Co., 105 Kan. 4 , 181 Pac. 599 ; 3 C. | 1 | 1923–1923 |
Warders v. Union Pacific Railroad
green
1 sentence1923(Hamilton v. Railway Co., 95 Kan. 353 , 147 Pac. 1126 ; Murphy v. Gas & Oil Co., 96 Kan. 321 , 150 Pac. 581 , and cases cited; Warders v. Railroad Co., 105 Kan. 4 , 181 Pac. 599 ; 3 C. | 1 | 1923–1923 |
Villalobos v. Cudahy Packing Co.
neutral
1 sentence1923(Hamilton v. Railway Co., 95 Kan. 353 , 147 Pac. 1126 ; Murphy v. Gas & Oil Co., 96 Kan. 321 , 150 Pac. 581 , and cases cited; Warders v. Railroad Co., 105 Kan. 4 , 181 Pac. 599 ; 3 C. | 1 | 1923–1923 |
Labadie v. Pellot
neutral
1 sentence1908(The State v. Pfefferle, 36 Kan. 90 , 12 Pac. 406 .) Finding no error in the record prejudicial to the substantial rights of the appellant, the judgment is affirmed. | 1 | 1908–1908 |
State v. Pfefferle
neutral
1 sentence1908(The State v. Pfefferle, 36 Kan. 90 , 12 Pac. 406 .) Finding no error in the record prejudicial to the substantial rights of the appellant, the judgment is affirmed. | 1 | 1908–1908 |
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.