8 Kansas opinions name it 2 courts 2000–2022 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 |
|---|---|---|
Wilkins v. Stategreen2 sentences2019See Wilkins v. State , 286 Kan. 971 , 988, 190 P.3d 957 (2008) ; Chamberlain v. State, 236 Kan. 650 , 659-60, 694 P.2d 468 (1985). 2019See Wilkins v. State , 286 Kan. 971 , 988, 190 P.3d 957 (2008) ; Chamberlain v. State, 236 Kan. 650 , 659-60, 694 P.2d 468 (1985). | 1 | 1 |
Bellamy v. Stategreen2 sentences2018White v. State , 308 Kan. 491 , 504, 421 P.3d 718 (2018) ; see Bellamy v. State , 285 Kan. 346 , 354-55, 172 P.3d 10 (2007). 2018White v. State , 308 Kan. 491 , 504, 421 P.3d 718 (2018) ; see Bellamy v. State , 285 Kan. 346 , 354-55, 172 P.3d 10 (2007). | 1 | 1 |
Cullen v. Pinholstergreen1 sentence2014Ed. 2d 348 (2013) (stating that the absence of evidence of counsel’s effectiveness cannot overcome the presumption that counsel’s conduct fell within the wide range of reasonable professional assistance); Pinholster, 131 S. Ct. at 1407 (stating that when trial counsel dies before a postconviction hearing, the reviewing court must consider the range of all possible reasons for trial counsel’s decisions); and Pabst v. State, 287 Kan. 1, 17 , 192 P.3d 630 (2008) (stating that when the allegedly ineffective counsel doesn’t testify at the habeas hearing, the court’s review of counsel’s conduct is h | 1 | 1 |
Clency v. Naglegreen1 sentence2000The federal courts have a habeas rule which incorporates the doctrine of laches: “Under Rule 9(a), a district court may dismiss a petition for die writ of habeas corpus upon a showing that (1) the state has been prejudiced in its ability to respond to the petition, (2) the prejudice resulted from the petitioner s delay in filing die petition, and (3) the petitioner has not acted widi reasonable diligence as a matter of law.” Clency v. Nagle, 60 F.3d 751, 753 (11th Cir. 1995). *564 The federal rule has been held not to be applicable to state habeas proceedings. | 1 | 1 |
Paxton v. Wardgreen1 sentence2000See Paxton v. Ward, 199 F.3d 1197, 1206-07 (10th Cir. 1999). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Kansas. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Wahl v. State
green
2 sentences2022Wahl v. State, 301 Kan. 610 , Syl. ¶ 1, 344 P.3d 385 (2015). 2022Wahl v. State, 301 Kan. 610 , Syl. ¶ 1, 344 P.3d 385 (2015). | 1 | 2022–2022 |
Schlup v. Delo
red
1 sentence2020Beauclair, 308 Kan. at 297-99 (citing Schlup, 513 U.S. at 314-15 ). | 1 | 2020–2020 |
Mullins v. State
green
1 sentence2020In Mullins, a panel of this court upheld a defendant's habeas challenge when the trial attorney defending a child sex abuse charge did not hire an expert witness who could testify about child-witness interview techniques. 30 Kan. | 1 | 2020–2020 |
Chamberlain v. State
green
2 sentences2019See Wilkins v. State , 286 Kan. 971 , 988, 190 P.3d 957 (2008) ; Chamberlain v. State, 236 Kan. 650 , 659-60, 694 P.2d 468 (1985). 2019See Wilkins v. State , 286 Kan. 971 , 988, 190 P.3d 957 (2008) ; Chamberlain v. State, 236 Kan. 650 , 659-60, 694 P.2d 468 (1985). | 1 | 2019–2019 |
White v. State
green
1 sentence2018White v. State , 308 Kan. 491 , 504, 421 P.3d 718 (2018) ; see Bellamy v. State , 285 Kan. 346 , 354-55, 172 P.3d 10 (2007). | 1 | 2018–2018 |
Thaler v. Haynes
green
1 sentence2018In Thaler v. Haynes , 559 U.S. 43 , 47-48, 130 S.Ct. 1171 , 175 L.Ed.2d 1003 (2010), the Court rejected a habeas claim, concluding the prosecutor may be able to explain a strike because of a potential juror's demeanor, even when the district court judge did not personally observe and recall the demeanor on which the explanation was based. | 1 | 2018–2018 |
Pabst v. State
green
2 sentences2014Ed. 2d 348 (2013) (stating that the absence of evidence of counsel’s effectiveness cannot overcome the presumption that counsel’s conduct fell within the wide range of reasonable professional assistance); Pinholster, 131 S. Ct. at 1407 (stating that when trial counsel dies before a postconviction hearing, the reviewing court must consider the range of all possible reasons for trial counsel’s decisions); and Pabst v. State, 287 Kan. 1, 17 , 192 P.3d 630 (2008) (stating that when the allegedly ineffective counsel doesn’t testify at the habeas hearing, the court’s review of counsel’s conduct is h 2014Ed. 2d 348 (2013) (stating that the absence of evidence of counsel’s effectiveness cannot overcome the presumption that counsel’s conduct fell within the wide range of reasonable professional assistance); Pinholster, 131 S. Ct. at 1407 (stating that when trial counsel dies before a postconviction hearing, the reviewing court must consider the range of all possible reasons for trial counsel’s decisions); and Pabst v. State, 287 Kan. 1, 17 , 192 P.3d 630 (2008) (stating that when the allegedly ineffective counsel doesn’t testify at the habeas hearing, the court’s review of counsel’s conduct is h | 1 | 2014–2014 |
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.