parole revocation hearing in Kansas

8 Kansas opinions name it 2 courts 1969–2008 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.

Followed or applied (2)

Case	Followed	Cited
Charles Curtis Harris v. Irl Day, Warden United States Parole Commissiongreen ca10 · 1981 · cited in 1 Kansas opinions naming this issue, 2008–2008 1 sentence 2008See, e.g., Harris v. Day, 649 F.2d 755, 761-62 (10th Cir. 1981) (explaining in a habeas proceeding, “[t]his court has required a showing of prejudice where there has been a delay in holding a parolee’s parole revocation hearing after execution of a parole warrant”).	1	1
Daryl Standlee v. B. J. Rhaygreen ca9 · 1977 · cited in 1 Kansas opinions naming this issue, 1992–1992 1 sentence 1992Standlee v. Rhay, 557 F.2d 1303, 1307 (9th Cir. 1977).	1	1

Distinguished, questioned or overruled (0)

Case	Negative	Cited
No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Kansas. Read the followed side critically anyway.

Also cited on this issue (12)

Case	Cited	Years
Morrissey v. Brewer green scotus · 1972 2 sentences 2008In the first of those decisions, the Court defined the due process standards that apply in a parole revocation hearing and held that a “revocation hearing must be tendered within a reasonable time after the parolee is taken into custody.” 408 U.S. at 488 . 2007The court first noted: “The Supreme Court has long recognized that a parole revocation hearing, which for present purposes is analogous to a supervised release hearing, ... is not equivalent to a ‘criminal prosecution.’ Morrissey v. Brewer, 408 U.S. 471, 480 , 92 S. Ct. 2593 , 33 L.	3	1997–2008
Gagnon v. Scarpelli red scotus · 1973 2 sentences 2008Then, in Gagnon, 411 U.S. at 782 , the Court held that the Morrissey v. Brewer due process requirements applied to probation revocation hearings as well. 1997Finally, the trial court paraphrased Morrissey, 408 U.S. at 480 : “[R]evocation of parole is not part of a criminal prosecution, and thus the full panoply of rights due to a defendant in such proceeding does not apply to parole revocation hearings.” The court also outlined the minimum due process requirements for a parole revocation hearing as listed in Gagnon : “(1) written notice of the claimed violation; “(2) disclosure to parolee of evidence against him; “(3) opportunity to be heard in person and to present witnesses and documentary evidence; “(4) right to confront adverse witnesses [if an	2	1997–2008
State v. Starbuck green kan · 1986 1 sentence 2002Throughout the hearing, the judge made comments regarding Starbuck’s evidence, examined witnesses, and expressed to defense counsel his opinions and that his “patience was wearing thin.” 239 Kan. at 134 .	1	2002–2002
Parker v. State green kan · 1990 2 sentences 1997Parker v. State, 247 Kan. 214, 216 , 795 P.2d 68 (1990). 1997The court held that, taking into account the prosecution of the new charges, the delay in holding the parole revocation hearing was not unreasonable. 247 Kan. at 216 .	1	1997–1997
United States v. James Delmore Deaton green ca5 · 1972 1 sentence 1990In this instance, however, the error was not reversible.” 468 F.2d at 544 .	1	1990–1990
cluster 260810 green cadc · 1963 1 sentence 1969(Dunn v. California Department of Corrections, 401 F. 2d 340 [9th Cir. 1968]; Williams v. Patterson, supra; Gonzales v. Patterson, 370 F. 2d 94 [10th Cir. 1966]; Lavendera v. Taylor, 234 F. Supp. 703 , affirmed 347 F. 2d 989 [10th Cir. 1965]; Jones v. Rivers, supra; Hyser v. Reed, 318 F. 2d 225 [D.	1	1969–1969
Robert E. Jones v. Hugh F. Rivers, Donald Clemmer green ca4 · 1964 2 sentences 1969(Jones v. Rivers, 338 F. 2d 862 [4th Cir. 1964].) The courts generally have held there is no federally protected constitutional right to counsel at a parole revocation hearing, and that any such right depends entirely upon the existence of statutory provisions. 1969(Dunn v. California Department of Corrections, 401 F. 2d 340 [9th Cir. 1968]; Williams v. Patterson, supra; Gonzales v. Patterson, 370 F. 2d 94 [10th Cir. 1966]; Lavendera v. Taylor, 234 F. Supp. 703 , affirmed 347 F. 2d 989 [10th Cir. 1965]; Jones v. Rivers, supra; Hyser v. Reed, 318 F. 2d 225 [D.	1	1969–1969
Jack Wesley Lavendera v. J. C. Taylor, Warden, United States Penitentiary, Leavenworth, Kansas green ca10 · 1965 1 sentence 1969(Dunn v. California Department of Corrections, 401 F. 2d 340 [9th Cir. 1968]; Williams v. Patterson, supra; Gonzales v. Patterson, 370 F. 2d 94 [10th Cir. 1966]; Lavendera v. Taylor, 234 F. Supp. 703 , affirmed 347 F. 2d 989 [10th Cir. 1965]; Jones v. Rivers, supra; Hyser v. Reed, 318 F. 2d 225 [D.	1	1969–1969
Joseph Ralph Liles v. United States Pf America green ca9 · 1966 1 sentence 1969(Dunn v. California Department of Corrections, 401 F. 2d 340 [9th Cir. 1968]; Williams v. Patterson, supra; Gonzales v. Patterson, 370 F. 2d 94 [10th Cir. 1966]; Lavendera v. Taylor, 234 F. Supp. 703 , affirmed 347 F. 2d 989 [10th Cir. 1965]; Jones v. Rivers, supra; Hyser v. Reed, 318 F. 2d 225 [D.	1	1969–1969
Woodrow Price Williams v. Wayne K. Patterson, Warden, Colorado State Penitentiary green ca10 · 1968 1 sentence 1969(Dunn v. California Department of Corrections, 401 F. 2d 340 [9th Cir. 1968]; Williams v. Patterson, supra; Gonzales v. Patterson, 370 F. 2d 94 [10th Cir. 1966]; Lavendera v. Taylor, 234 F. Supp. 703 , affirmed 347 F. 2d 989 [10th Cir. 1965]; Jones v. Rivers, supra; Hyser v. Reed, 318 F. 2d 225 [D.	1	1969–1969
James Franklin Dunn v. California Department of Corrections, California Adult Authority, and L. S. Nelson, Warden green ca9 · 1968 1 sentence 1969(Dunn v. California Department of Corrections, 401 F. 2d 340 [9th Cir. 1968]; Williams v. Patterson, supra; Gonzales v. Patterson, 370 F. 2d 94 [10th Cir. 1966]; Lavendera v. Taylor, 234 F. Supp. 703 , affirmed 347 F. 2d 989 [10th Cir. 1965]; Jones v. Rivers, supra; Hyser v. Reed, 318 F. 2d 225 [D.	1	1969–1969
Lavendera v. Taylor green ksd · 1964 1 sentence 1969(Dunn v. California Department of Corrections, 401 F. 2d 340 [9th Cir. 1968]; Williams v. Patterson, supra; Gonzales v. Patterson, 370 F. 2d 94 [10th Cir. 1966]; Lavendera v. Taylor, 234 F. Supp. 703 , affirmed 347 F. 2d 989 [10th Cir. 1965]; Jones v. Rivers, supra; Hyser v. Reed, 318 F. 2d 225 [D.	1	1969–1969

Statutes the citing opinions construe

KS § K.S.A. § 20-3018 (3)

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.

Where else courts name it

NY 278 (1968–2024) PA 170 (1966–2026) OH 67 (1970–2026) CA 51 (1971–2026) WA 35 (1970–2024) TX 31 (1972–2025) NJ 20 (1972–2026) MI 14 (1970–2017) FL 13 (1971–2008) CO 12 (1974–2025) IN 12 (1973–2019) WI 10 (1974–2007) WV 9 (1974–2025) OR 8 (1971–2022) KS 8 (1969–2008) MT 7 (1969–2021) GA 7 (1972–2008) UT 7 (1969–2016) LA 6 (1975–2012) NV 6 (2014–2022) MA 5 (1977–2023) IA 5 (1984–2021) MD 5 (2003–2020) TN 5 (1976–2005) MN 5 (1982–2014) CT 5 (1976–2008) RI 5 (1974–2018) VA 5 (1986–2013) NH 4 (1986–2015) MS 4 (1986–2011) NM 4 (1994–2012) DC 4 (1981–2001) AZ 4 (1977–1992) AK 4 (1980–2023) IL 3 (1987–2005) ME 3 (1982–2000) ID 3 (1971–2023) AL 3 (1998–2025) SD 3 (1978–2009) VT 3 (1985–1995) MO 3 (1971–2004) OK 2 (1982–2003) HI 2 (1998–2007) KY 2 (2006–2012)

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.

← Caselaw search · G Cite Topics · Brief Check