holding error in Kansas

2022This requires a court holding an error harmless to conclude there is no "'reasonable possibility'" the error contributed to the verdict. 292 Kan. at 564 .

2022On the other hand, a less stringent standard for nonconstitutional errors requires a court to find only that there is no "reasonable probability" the outcome would have been different, but for the error. 292 Kan. at 565 .

2017For this he relies on Sharkey, 299 Kan. 87 , and State v. Prado, 299 Kan. 1251 , 329 P.3d 473 (2014), because he claims at the preliminary hearing Parker took "no effort to put forth his claims," failed "to object to the court holding a hearing" outside his presence, and "spoke out against her client." But McDaniel's case is distinguishable from Sharkey and Prado.

2017For this he relies on Sharkey, 299 Kan. 87 , and State v. Prado, 299 Kan. 1251 , 329 P.3d 473 (2014), because he claims at the preliminary hearing Parker took "no effort to put forth his claims," failed "to object to the court holding a hearing" outside his presence, and "spoke out against her client." But McDaniel's case is distinguishable from Sharkey and Prado.

2017For this he relies on Sharkey, 299 Kan. 87 , and State v. Prado, 299 Kan. 1251 , 329 P.3d 473 (2014), because he claims at the preliminary hearing Parker took "no effort to put forth his claims," failed "to object to the court holding a hearing" outside his presence, and "spoke out against her client." But McDaniel's case is distinguishable from Sharkey and Prado.

2013Accord State v. Conley, 287 Kan. 696, 702 , 197 P.3d 837 (2008); State v. Duke, 263 Kan. 193, 195 , 946 P.2d 1375 (1997).

2013Accord State v. Conley, 287 Kan. 696, 702 , 197 P.3d 837 (2008); State v. Duke, 263 Kan. 193, 195 , 946 P.2d 1375 (1997).

2013It appears just as obvious that if the motion . . . fails to state any substantial issues of law or fact, or states sufficient facts to allow a determination based upon die motion itself, then appointment of counsel and the holding of a hearing would be unwarranted.” 247 Kan. at 584-85 .

1948Held, That as the mortgage was properly on file in the office of the register of deeds, and valid, the commission merchant or broker was bound to take notice of the same and of the rights of the mortgagee, and that by selling and delivering the property to others he made himself liable to the mortgagee as for a conversion of the property.” The case on this point has been followed and relied upon in Greer v. Newland, 70 Kan. 310 , 77 Pac. 98 , although in that action the plaintiffs specifically waived the tort and relied upon the implied contract, the court holding that the rule as announced in

1948Held, That as the mortgage was properly on file in the office of the register of deeds, and valid, the commission merchant or broker was bound to take notice of the same and of the rights of the mortgagee, and that by selling and delivering the property to others he made himself liable to the mortgagee as for a conversion of the property.” The case on this point has been followed and relied upon in Greer v. Newland, 70 Kan. 310 , 77 Pac. 98 , although in that action the plaintiffs specifically waived the tort and relied upon the implied contract, the court holding that the rule as announced in

1933In McMahon v. Railway Co., 96 Kan. 271 , 150 Pac. 566 , a judg ment for the defendant on the answers to special questions was reversed, this court holding that the doctrine of last clear chance forbade a judgment.

1933In McMahon v. Railway Co., 96 Kan. 271 , 150 Pac. 566 , a judg ment for the defendant on the answers to special questions was reversed, this court holding that the doctrine of last clear chance forbade a judgment.

1913The rule as stated in The State v. Baker, 57 Kan. 541 , 46 Pac. 947 , The State v. Hinkley, 81 Kan. 838 , 106 Pac. 1088 , and The State v. Olsen, 88 Kan. 136 , 127 Pac. 625 , does not warrant the holding that error materially prejudicial to the defendant was committed in this respect.

1913The rule as stated in The State v. Baker, 57 Kan. 541 , 46 Pac. 947 , The State v. Hinkley, 81 Kan. 838 , 106 Pac. 1088 , and The State v. Olsen, 88 Kan. 136 , 127 Pac. 625 , does not warrant the holding that error materially prejudicial to the defendant was committed in this respect.

1913The rule as stated in The State v. Baker, 57 Kan. 541 , 46 Pac. 947 , The State v. Hinkley, 81 Kan. 838 , 106 Pac. 1088 , and The State v. Olsen, 88 Kan. 136 , 127 Pac. 625 , does not warrant the holding that error materially prejudicial to the defendant was committed in this respect.

1913The rule as stated in The State v. Baker, 57 Kan. 541 , 46 Pac. 947 , The State v. Hinkley, 81 Kan. 838 , 106 Pac. 1088 , and The State v. Olsen, 88 Kan. 136 , 127 Pac. 625 , does not warrant the holding that error materially prejudicial to the defendant was committed in this respect.

1913The rule as stated in The State v. Baker, 57 Kan. 541 , 46 Pac. 947 , The State v. Hinkley, 81 Kan. 838 , 106 Pac. 1088 , and The State v. Olsen, 88 Kan. 136 , 127 Pac. 625 , does not warrant the holding that error materially prejudicial to the defendant was committed in this respect.

1913The rule as stated in The State v. Baker, 57 Kan. 541 , 46 Pac. 947 , The State v. Hinkley, 81 Kan. 838 , 106 Pac. 1088 , and The State v. Olsen, 88 Kan. 136 , 127 Pac. 625 , does not warrant the holding that error materially prejudicial to the defendant was committed in this respect.