8 Kansas opinions name it 2 courts 2002–2022 2 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. Longoriagreen2 sentences2020In determining whether these circumstances exist so as to create prejudice under the statutory scheme, the trial court is to consider the following nine factors: 6 "'(1) the particular degree to which the publicity circulated throughout the community; (2) the degree to which the publicity or that of a like nature circulated to other areas to which venue could be changed; (3) the length of time which elapsed from the dissemination of the publicity to the date of trial; (4) the care exercised and the ease encountered in the selection of the jury; (5) the familiarity with the publicity complained 2019K.S.A. 22-2616(1) directs a trial court to grant a defendant's motion to change venue if it "is satisfied that there exists in the county where the prosecution is pending so great a prejudice against the defendant that he cannot obtain a fair and impartial trial in that county." In determining whether these circumstances exist, the trial court considers the following nine factors: " '(1) the particular degree to which the publicity circulated throughout the community; (2) the degree to which the publicity or that of a like nature circulated to other areas to which venue could be changed; (3) t | 1 | 3 |
State v. Wardgreen2 sentences2014See State v. Ward, 292 Kan. 541, 550 , 256 P.3d 801 (2011) (“Judicial discretion is abused if judicial action (1) is arbitrary, fanciful, or unreasonable, i.e., if no reasonable person would have taken the view adopted by the trial court.”). 2014See State v. Ward, 292 Kan. 541, 550 , 256 P.3d 801 (2011) (“Judicial discretion is abused if judicial action (1) is arbitrary, fanciful, or unreasonable, i.e., if no reasonable person would have taken the view adopted by the trial court.”). | 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. Carr
green
2 sentences2020In determining whether these circumstances exist so as to create prejudice under the statutory scheme, the trial court is to consider the following nine factors: 6 "'(1) the particular degree to which the publicity circulated throughout the community; (2) the degree to which the publicity or that of a like nature circulated to other areas to which venue could be changed; (3) the length of time which elapsed from the dissemination of the publicity to the date of trial; (4) the care exercised and the ease encountered in the selection of the jury; (5) the familiarity with the publicity complained 2020In determining whether these circumstances exist so as to create prejudice under the statutory scheme, the trial court is to consider the following nine factors: 6 "'(1) the particular degree to which the publicity circulated throughout the community; (2) the degree to which the publicity or that of a like nature circulated to other areas to which venue could be changed; (3) the length of time which elapsed from the dissemination of the publicity to the date of trial; (4) the care exercised and the ease encountered in the selection of the jury; (5) the familiarity with the publicity complained | 3 | 2015–2020 |
Wood v. Groh
green
2 sentences2022Here, the district court ordered Brown to pay a monetary sanction of $2,500 to the Clerk of the District Court, not to opposing counsel. 22 In determining whether to issue a sanction under K.S.A. 2020 Supp. 60-211(c) and in determining what sanction is appropriate, a district court must consider the nine factors identified in Wood, 269 Kan. at 431 ; Sokol, 49 Kan. 2022In the district court's comprehensive journal entry, the district court addressed each of the nine factors set forth in Wood v. Groh, 269 Kan. at 431 . | 2 | 2022–2022 |
Kansas v. Kansas
green
2 sentences2020In determining whether these circumstances exist so as to create prejudice under the statutory scheme, the trial court is to consider the following nine factors: 6 "'(1) the particular degree to which the publicity circulated throughout the community; (2) the degree to which the publicity or that of a like nature circulated to other areas to which venue could be changed; (3) the length of time which elapsed from the dissemination of the publicity to the date of trial; (4) the care exercised and the ease encountered in the selection of the jury; (5) the familiarity with the publicity complained 2020In determining whether these circumstances exist so as to create prejudice under the statutory scheme, the trial court is to consider the following nine factors: 6 "'(1) the particular degree to which the publicity circulated throughout the community; (2) the degree to which the publicity or that of a like nature circulated to other areas to which venue could be changed; (3) the length of time which elapsed from the dissemination of the publicity to the date of trial; (4) the care exercised and the ease encountered in the selection of the jury; (5) the familiarity with the publicity complained | 2 | 2019–2020 |
In re the Marriage of Bergmann
green
1 sentence2022Here, the district court ordered Brown to pay a monetary sanction of $2,500 to the Clerk of the District Court, not to opposing counsel. 22 In determining whether to issue a sanction under K.S.A. 2020 Supp. 60-211(c) and in determining what sanction is appropriate, a district court must consider the nine factors identified in Wood, 269 Kan. at 431 ; Sokol, 49 Kan. | 1 | 2022–2022 |
State v. Lewis
green
2 sentences2018Lewis , 299 Kan. at 835 , 326 P.3d 387 . 2018Lewis , 299 Kan. at 835 , 326 P.3d 387 . | 1 | 2018–2018 |
Doe v. Provident Life & Accident Insurance
green
2 sentences2002In 1997, the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania adopted the nine factors test, stating: “The factors which support the use of pseudonymous litigation are as follows: (1) the extent to which the identity of the litigant has been kept confidential; (2) the bases upon which disclosure is feared or sought to be avoided, and the substantiality of these bases; (3) the magnitude of the public interest in maintaining the confidentiality of the litigant’s identity; (4) whether, because of the purely legal nature of the issues presented or otherwise, there is an atypic 2002In 1997, the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania adopted the nine factors test, stating: "The factors which support the use of pseudonymous litigation are as follows: (1) the extent to which the identity of the litigant has been kept confidential; (2) the bases upon which disclosure is feared or sought to be avoided, and the substantiality of these bases; (3) the magnitude of the public interest in maintaining the confidentiality of the litigant's identity; (4) whether, because of the purely legal nature of the issues presented or otherwise, there is an atypic | 1 | 2002–2002 |
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.