9 Kansas opinions name it 2 courts 2004–2024 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. Meeksgreen1 sentence2021See Meeks, 307 Kan. at 820 . | 1 | 1 |
State v. Scottgreen1 sentence2017See Scott, 285 Kan. at 372 . | 1 | 1 |
State v. Penningtongreen2 sentences2014This court’s jurisdiction arises under K.S.A. 2011 Supp. 22-3601(b)(3) (life sentence imposed); see State v. Pennington, 288 Kan. 599, 599 , 205 P.3d 741 (2009) (jurisdiction over appeal of motion to correct illegal sentence lies with court that had jurisdiction to hear original appeal). 2014This court’s jurisdiction arises under K.S.A. 2011 Supp. 22-3601(b)(3) (life sentence imposed); see State v. Pennington, 288 Kan. 599, 599 , 205 P.3d 741 (2009) (jurisdiction over appeal of motion to correct illegal sentence lies with court that had jurisdiction to hear original appeal). | 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. Taylor
green
2 sentences2024The court also held Taylor was not given a "meaningful opportunity to show 'good cause'" because he was without assistance of conflict-free counsel. 266 Kan. at 977 . 2004On appeal, the Kansas Supreme Court vacated Taylor’s sentence and remanded the case for a hearing on Taylor’s motion to withdraw his plea. 266 Kan. at 979-80 . | 2 | 2004–2024 |
State v. Anderson
green
2 sentences2022State v. Anderson, 294 Kan. 450, 465 , 276 P.3d 200 (2012). 2022State v. Anderson, 294 Kan. 450, 465 , 276 P.3d 200 (2012). | 1 | 2022–2022 |
State v. Taylor
green
2 sentences2020But more importantly, the court found that Taylor's claim was "based on a false premise as to prejudice" because the State was still required to bring him to trial within the statutory period, holding: "In other words, Taylor suffered no actual prejudice by reason of the competency evaluation; he was free to assert and demand compliance with the speedy trial deadline at all times." 2010 WL 2245599, at *7 . 2020The court, again, reasoned that the change found on Taylor's person was a "damning discovery [that] certainly blunts—if not obliterates—Taylor's challenge to the identification procedures and related testimony." 2010 WL 2245599, at *4 . | 1 | 2020–2020 |
Taylor v. Allstate Indemnity Co.
neutral
1 sentence2019Taylor , 30 Kan. | 1 | 2019–2019 |
State v. Taylor
green
2 sentences2007Under this standard, the court rejected Taylor's claim, stating: "The State has a compelling interest in the well-being of its children and in the exercise of its police powers may enact legislation to protect children from adult sexual predators. [Citation omitted.] We conclude a rational relationship exists between K.S.A. 21-3504(a)(1) and the legitimate interests of the State." 33 Kan.App.2d at 286 , 101 P.3d 1283 . 2007Under this standard, the court rejected Taylor's claim, stating: "The State has a compelling interest in the well-being of its children and in the exercise of its police powers may enact legislation to protect children from adult sexual predators. [Citation omitted.] We conclude a rational relationship exists between K.S.A. 21-3504(a)(1) and the legitimate interests of the State." 33 Kan.App.2d at 286 , 101 P.3d 1283 . | 1 | 2007–2007 |
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.