8 Kansas opinions name it 2 courts 1977–2022 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 |
|---|---|---|
In the Interest of B.D.-Y.green1 sentence2010See 286 Kan. 686 , Syl. ¶ 2. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Kansas. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Taylor v. Commissioner of Mental Health & Mental Retardation
green
2 sentences2008The Homer court, like this court in Ortega , had held that the clear and convincing evidence standard “does not identify a level of proof higher than proof by a preponderance, but rather denotes the better quality of evidence that is required to satisfy the preponderance standard.” (Emphasis added.) Taylor, 481 A.2d at 153 . 2008The Horner court, like this court in Ortega , had held that the clear and convincing evidence standard "does not identify a level of proof higher than proof by a preponderance, but rather denotes the better quality of evidence that is required to satisfy the preponderance standard." (Emphasis added.) Taylor, 481 A.2d at 153 . | 2 | 2008–2008 |
Addington v. Texas
green
2 sentences2008The Taylor court began its analysis by echoing the United States Supreme Court in Addington, 441 U.S. at 423 , concerning the function of a standard of proof: “[A] standard of proof serves to allocate the risk of error [between the litigants] and to instruct the factfinder as to the degree of confidence society expects for a particular decision. 2008The Taylor court began its analysis by echoing the United States Supreme Court in Addington, 441 U.S. at 423 , 99 S.Ct. 1804 , concerning the function of a standard of proof: "[A] standard of proof serves to allocate the risk of error [between the litigants] and to instruct the factfinder as to the degree of confidence society expects for a particular decision. | 2 | 2008–2008 |
Lego v. Twomey
green
2 sentences1990Lego v. Twomey, 404 U.S. 477 , 92 S. Ct. 619 , 30 L. 1990Lego v. Twomey, 404 U.S. 477 , 92 S. Ct. 619 , 30 L. | 2 | 1977–1990 |
Nelson, Administrator v. Dague
green
2 sentences2022The discussion in Wilkinson v. Cummings, 194 Kan. 609, 611-12 , 400 P.2d 729 (1965), and Nelson v. Dague, 194 Kan. 195, 198-99 , 398 P.2d 268 (1965), among other cases, is of the same tenor. 2022The discussion in Wilkinson v. Cummings, 194 Kan. 609, 611-12 , 400 P.2d 729 (1965), and Nelson v. Dague, 194 Kan. 195, 198-99 , 398 P.2d 268 (1965), among other cases, is of the same tenor. | 1 | 2022–2022 |
Wilkinson v. Cummings
green
2 sentences2022The discussion in Wilkinson v. Cummings, 194 Kan. 609, 611-12 , 400 P.2d 729 (1965), and Nelson v. Dague, 194 Kan. 195, 198-99 , 398 P.2d 268 (1965), among other cases, is of the same tenor. 2022The discussion in Wilkinson v. Cummings, 194 Kan. 609, 611-12 , 400 P.2d 729 (1965), and Nelson v. Dague, 194 Kan. 195, 198-99 , 398 P.2d 268 (1965), among other cases, is of the same tenor. | 1 | 2022–2022 |
Estate of Stephens
green
2 sentences2017Estate of Stephens, 28 Cal. 4th at 678 n.7. 2017Estate of Stephens, 28 Cal. 4th at 678 n.7. | 1 | 2017–2017 |
In Re WINSHIP
green
2 sentences2001The Court held that such an instruction would relieve the State of its burden and plainly run afoul of the mandate in In re Winship, 397 U.S. 358, 364 , 25 L. 2001The Court held that such an instruction would relieve the State of its burden and plainly run afoul of the mandate in In re Winship, 397 U.S. 358, 364 , 25 L. | 1 | 2001–2001 |
In re Japanese Electronic Products Antitrust Litigation
green
1 sentence1990E.g., United States v. Petrozziello, 548 F.2d 20 (1st Cir. 1977) (proof of conspiracy as precondition for admitting statement of co-conspirator); In re Japanese Electronic Products Antitrust Litigation, 723 F.2d 238 (3d Cir. 1983) (foundation for business records exception).” 745 P.2d at 1016 n. 10. | 1 | 1990–1990 |
United States v. Ralph Petrozziello
green
1 sentence1990E.g., United States v. Petrozziello, 548 F.2d 20 (1st Cir. 1977) (proof of conspiracy as precondition for admitting statement of co-conspirator); In re Japanese Electronic Products Antitrust Litigation, 723 F.2d 238 (3d Cir. 1983) (foundation for business records exception).” 745 P.2d at 1016 n. 10. | 1 | 1990–1990 |
People v. Romero
green
1 sentence1990E.g., United States v. Petrozziello, 548 F.2d 20 (1st Cir. 1977) (proof of conspiracy as precondition for admitting statement of co-conspirator); In re Japanese Electronic Products Antitrust Litigation, 723 F.2d 238 (3d Cir. 1983) (foundation for business records exception).” 745 P.2d at 1016 n. 10. | 1 | 1990–1990 |
State v. Stephenson
green
2 sentences1977(See State v. Stephenson, 217 Kan. 169 , 535 P.2d 940 , and Lego v. *144 Twomey, 404 U.S. 477 , 30 L.Ed.2d 618 , 92 S.Ct. 619 , for the test as to evidence necessary to establish the voluntariness of a confession.) There is evidence to uphold the trial court's finding that consent was freely given. 1977(See State v. Stephenson, 217 Kan. 169 , 535 P.2d 940 , and Lego v. *144 Twomey, 404 U.S. 477 , 30 L.Ed.2d 618 , 92 S.Ct. 619 , for the test as to evidence necessary to establish the voluntariness of a confession.) There is evidence to uphold the trial court's finding that consent was freely given. | 1 | 1977–1977 |
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.