8 Kansas opinions name it 2 courts 1905–2017 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. Beamangreen2 sentences2016See State v. Beaman, 295 Kan. 853, 857 , 286 P.3d 876 (2012). 2016See State v. Beaman, 295 Kan. 853, 857 , 286 P.3d 876 (2012). | 2 | 2 |
Pearson v. Callahangreen2 sentences2013See Pearson v. Callahan, 555 U.S. 223, 241-42, 129 S. Ct. 808 , 172 L. 2013See Pearson v. Callahan, 555 U.S. 223, 241-42, 129 S. Ct. 808 , 172 L. | 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. Dunn
green
1 sentence2017But this is a prudential consideration rather than an invariable rule. 304 Kan. at 817 . | 1 | 2017–2017 |
Schroeder v. Texas Co.
neutral
2 sentences1965It cannot be doubted that in this jurisdiction the granting of a motion for a new trial rests within the sound discretion of the trial court (Barajas v. Sonders, 193 Kan. 273 , 392 P. 2d 849 ; Schroeder v. Texas Co., 169 Kan. 607 , 219 P. 2d 1063 ), and that an order setting aside a verdict and allowing a new trial will not be reversed in the absence of a clear abuse of discretion. 1965It cannot be doubted that in this jurisdiction the granting of a motion for a new trial rests within the sound discretion of the trial court (Barajas v. Sonders, 193 Kan. 273 , 392 P. 2d 849 ; Schroeder v. Texas Co., 169 Kan. 607 , 219 P. 2d 1063 ), and that an order setting aside a verdict and allowing a new trial will not be reversed in the absence of a clear abuse of discretion. | 1 | 1965–1965 |
Barajas v. Sonders
green
2 sentences1965It cannot be doubted that in this jurisdiction the granting of a motion for a new trial rests within the sound discretion of the trial court (Barajas v. Sonders, 193 Kan. 273 , 392 P. 2d 849 ; Schroeder v. Texas Co., 169 Kan. 607 , 219 P. 2d 1063 ), and that an order setting aside a verdict and allowing a new trial will not be reversed in the absence of a clear abuse of discretion. 1965It cannot be doubted that in this jurisdiction the granting of a motion for a new trial rests within the sound discretion of the trial court (Barajas v. Sonders, 193 Kan. 273 , 392 P. 2d 849 ; Schroeder v. Texas Co., 169 Kan. 607 , 219 P. 2d 1063 ), and that an order setting aside a verdict and allowing a new trial will not be reversed in the absence of a clear abuse of discretion. | 1 | 1965–1965 |
Mentze v. Rice
neutral
2 sentences1919In Mentze v. Rice, 102 Kan. 855 , 172 Pac. 516 , it was said: “The rule is that a demurrer to the defendant’s evidence should not be sustained unless there is an entire absence of proof tending to show a right to recover. 1919In Mentze v. Rice, 102 Kan. 855 , 172 Pac. 516 , it was said: “The rule is that a demurrer to the defendant’s evidence should not be sustained unless there is an entire absence of proof tending to show a right to recover. | 1 | 1919–1919 |
Griesa v. Thomas
green
2 sentences1918(Griesa v. Thomas, 99 Kan. 335, 340 , 161 Pac. 670 .) The present case illustrates the necessity for the rule. 1918(Griesa v. Thomas, 99 Kan. 335, 340 , 161 Pac. 670 .) The present case illustrates the necessity for the rule. | 1 | 1918–1918 |
State v. Davis
neutral
1 sentence1905It was said in The State v. Davis, 48 Kan. 1 , 28 Pac. 1092 : “In a criminal prosecution for murder in the first degree, where the corpus delicti cannot well be proved except by the introduction of evidence tending to show the defendant’s guilty connection with the offense, held, that evidence tending to prove both the corpus delicti and the defendant’s guilt may be introduced at the same time.” (Syllabus.) The order of introducing evidence in a case is a matter that rests in the sound discretion of the trial court, and while logical considerations have impelled law-writers to lay down certain | 1 | 1905–1905 |
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.