8 Kansas opinions name it 2 courts 1961–2024 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 |
|---|---|---|
Strickler v. Greenegreen2 sentences2017This court requires three essential elements to establish a Brady violation: "'(1) The evidence at issue must be favorable to the accused, either because it is exculpatory, or because it is impeaching; (2) that evidence must have been suppressed by the State, either willfully or inadvertently; and (3) the evidence must be material so as to establish 15 prejudice.'" State v. Moore, 302 Kan. 685, 700 , 357 P.3d 275 (2015); see also Strickler, 527 U.S. at 290 (prejudice encompasses the materiality requirement of Brady). 2012Ed. 2d 1166 (2004); see also Strickler, 527 U.S. at 290 (prejudice encompasses the materiality requirement of Brady). *507 In the present case, the first two Brady elements are not at issue. | 2 | 2 |
Morrison v. Berrygreen1 sentence2024But the materiality test "'does not require proof of a substantial likelihood that disclosure of the omitted fact would have caused the reasonable investor to change his vote.'" Morrison v. Berry, 191 A.3d 268, 282-83 (Del. 2018). | 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. Williams
green
2 sentences2020A "reasonable probability" is a probability sufficient to undermine confidence in the outcome.'" State v. Williams, 303 Kan. 585, 597 , 363 P.3d 1101 (2016). 2020A "reasonable probability" is a probability sufficient to undermine confidence in the outcome.'" State v. Williams, 303 Kan. 585, 597 , 363 P.3d 1101 (2016). | 1 | 2020–2020 |
State v. Moore
green
2 sentences2017This court requires three essential elements to establish a Brady violation: "'(1) The evidence at issue must be favorable to the accused, either because it is exculpatory, or because it is impeaching; (2) that evidence must have been suppressed by the State, either willfully or inadvertently; and (3) the evidence must be material so as to establish 15 prejudice.'" State v. Moore, 302 Kan. 685, 700 , 357 P.3d 275 (2015); see also Strickler, 527 U.S. at 290 (prejudice encompasses the materiality requirement of Brady). 2017This court requires three essential elements to establish a Brady violation: "'(1) The evidence at issue must be favorable to the accused, either because it is exculpatory, or because it is impeaching; (2) that evidence must have been suppressed by the State, either willfully or inadvertently; and (3) the evidence must be material so as to establish 15 prejudice.'" State v. Moore, 302 Kan. 685, 700 , 357 P.3d 275 (2015); see also Strickler, 527 U.S. at 290 (prejudice encompasses the materiality requirement of Brady). | 1 | 2017–2017 |
Pouncil v. Kansas Employment Security Board of Review
green
2 sentences2000She concluded: (1) The record did not support a finding that the previous injury was “serious,” and (2) the prior receipt of workers compensation benefits did not meet the materiality test set forth by the majority. 25 Kan. 2000She concluded: (1) The record did not support a finding that the previous injury was "serious," and (2) the prior receipt of workers compensation benefits did not meet the materiality test set forth by the majority. 25 Kan. | 1 | 2000–2000 |
Martin Fine v. Bellefonte Underwriters Insurance Co.
green
2 sentences1996Co., 725 F.2d 179 (2d Cir. 1984), cert. denied 474 U.S. 826 (1985), the Second Circuit Court of Appeals discussed the materiality requirement to such a finding. 1996The Second Circuit reversed, holding that “the materiality requirement is satisfied if the false statement concerns a subject relevant and germane to the insurer’s investigation as it was then proceeding.” 725 F.2d at 183 . | 1 | 1996–1996 |
Welcker v. United States
green
1 sentence1996Co., 725 F.2d 179 (2d Cir. 1984), cert. denied 474 U.S. 826 (1985), the Second Circuit Court of Appeals discussed the materiality requirement to such a finding. | 1 | 1996–1996 |
State v. Bly
green
2 sentences1976S. A. 60-455 was discussed in State v. Bly, 215 Kan. 168 , 523 P. 2d 397 , in these terms: “. . . 1976S. A. 60-455 was discussed in State v. Bly, 215 Kan. 168 , 523 P. 2d 397 , in these terms: “. . . | 1 | 1976–1976 |
George R. Barse Live Stock & Commission Co. v. Guthrie
neutral
1 sentence1961(Iron Works v. Construction Co., supra, at p. 484.) Touching upon the subject of remittitur in Live Stock Co. v. Guthrie, 50 Kan. 476 , 31 Pac. 1073 , it was said: “. . . | 1 | 1961–1961 |
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.