8 Kansas opinions name it 2 courts 1917–2025 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. Angelogreen2 sentences2011See State v. Angelo, 287 Kan. 262, 280 , 197 P.3d 337 (2008) (a litigant may not invite or lead a district court into error and then complain of the district court's action on appeal). 2011See State v. Angelo, 287 Kan. 262, 280 , 197 P.3d 337 (2008) (a litigant may not invite or lead a district court into error and then complain of the district court's action on appeal). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Bishopgreen2 sentences2010See State v. Bishop, 264 Kan. 717, 725 , 957 P.2d 369 (1998). 2010See State v. Bishop, 264 Kan. 717, 725 , 957 P.2d 369 (1998). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Kneilgreen2 sentences2008In reversing the sentence, the Cody court held that under Apprendi , a plea of guilty to the elements of a criminal offense does not constitute either an admission or a waiver of his or her due process rights. 272 Kan. 564 , Syl. ¶ 1; see State v. Kneil, 272 Kan. 567 , 35 P.3d 797 (2001). 2008In reversing the sentence, the Cody court held that under Apprendi , a plea of guilty to the elements of a criminal offense does not constitute either an admission or a waiver of his or her due process rights. 272 Kan. 564 , Syl. ¶ 1; see State v. Kneil, 272 Kan. 567 , 35 P.3d 797 (2001). | 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. Franklin
green
2 sentences2025And K.S.A. 2024 Supp. 60-460(g) allows admissions against a party's interest: "As against a party, a statement by the person who is the party to the action in the person's individual or a representative capacity and, if the latter, who was acting in such representative capacity in making the statement." Cf. State v. Franklin, 280 Kan. 337, 338-42 , 121 P.3d 447 (2005) (defendant's text message to ex-boyfriend, suggesting she killed another woman, was an admission and therefore an exception to hearsay rule). 2025And K.S.A. 2024 Supp. 60-460(g) allows admissions against a party's interest: "As against a party, a statement by the person who is the party to the action in the person's individual or a representative capacity and, if the latter, who was acting in such representative capacity in making the statement." Cf. State v. Franklin, 280 Kan. 337, 338-42 , 121 P.3d 447 (2005) (defendant's text message to ex-boyfriend, suggesting she killed another woman, was an admission and therefore an exception to hearsay rule). | 1 | 2025–2025 |
State v. Gunby
green
2 sentences2011See K.S.A. 22-3414(3); K.S.A. 60-261; State v. Gunby, 282 Kan. 39 , Syl. ¶ 4, 144 P.3d 647 (2006). 2011See K.S.A. 22-3414(3); K.S.A. 60-261; State v. Gunby, 282 Kan. 39 , Syl. ¶ 4, 144 P.3d 647 (2006). | 1 | 2011–2011 |
State v. Rose
green
1 sentence2008The Rose court disagreed and held the district judge was obligated to try the case de novo “ ‘as if it had not been heard before and as if no decision had been previously rendered.’ ” 29 Kan. | 1 | 2008–2008 |
State v. Cody
green
1 sentence2008In reversing the sentence, the Cody court held that under Apprendi , a plea of guilty to the elements of a criminal offense does not constitute either an admission or a waiver of his or her due process rights. 272 Kan. 564 , Syl. ¶ 1; see State v. Kneil, 272 Kan. 567 , 35 P.3d 797 (2001). | 1 | 2008–2008 |
State v. Hodges
green
2 sentences1987The same general evidentiary rule is again recognized in State v. Hodges, 239 Kan. 63 , 716 P.2d 563 (1986), where Syllabus ¶ 1 states the rule as follows: “The basis for the admission of expert testimony is necessity, arising out of the particular circumstances of the case. 1987The same general evidentiary rule is again recognized in State v. Hodges, 239 Kan. 63 , 716 P.2d 563 (1986), where Syllabus ¶ 1 states the rule as follows: “The basis for the admission of expert testimony is necessity, arising out of the particular circumstances of the case. | 1 | 1987–1987 |
Stevens v. Boston Elevated Railway Co.
green
1 sentence1917A., n. s., 1063.) In section 282 of volume 1 of Wigmore on Evidence the learned author states the following principle: “The opponent’s conduct in taking precautions to prevent an apprehended injury, or to remedy one already inflicted, may sometimes indicate a consciousness of wrong, in respect either to the party’s identity as the wrongdoer or to his. culpability in doing the act.” In the corresponding section of volume 5, the supplemental volüme, direction is given to add to the original section, as a new paragraph, the following: “So, too, an employer’s general rule of conduct for employees | 1 | 1917–1917 |
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.