theory behind rule (Kansas) · Go Syfert
← Kansas issues

theory behind rule in Kansas

8 Kansas opinions name it 2 courts 2016–2025 5 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 (0)

CaseFollowedCited
No positive-treatment citations attached to this issue in Kansas.

Distinguished, questioned or overruled (0)

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

Also cited on this issue (5)

CaseCitedYears
State v. Seacat green
kan · 2016
2 sentences

2025"The theory behind the rule excluding hearsay evidence is that the credibility of the declarant is the basis for the reliability of the statement, and the declarant must therefore be available for cross-examination." State v. Seacat, 303 Kan. 622, 635 , 366 P.3d 208 (2016). 11 But out-of-court statements that are not offered to prove the truth of the matter asserted are not hearsay.

2025"The theory behind the rule excluding hearsay evidence is that the credibility of the declarant is the basis for the reliability of the statement, and the declarant must therefore be available for cross-examination." State v. Seacat, 303 Kan. 622, 635 , 366 P.3d 208 (2016). 11 But out-of-court statements that are not offered to prove the truth of the matter asserted are not hearsay.

52020–2025
State v. Race green
kan · 2011
2 sentences

2024State v. Race, 293 Kan. 69, 76 , 259 P.3d 707 (2011).

2024State v. Race, 293 Kan. 69, 76 , 259 P.3d 707 (2011).

22020–2024
State v. Vontress green
kan · 1998
2 sentences

2025State v. Sinnard, 318 Kan. 261 , 287, 543 P.3d 525 (2024); State v. Vontress, 266 Kan. 248, 253 , 970 P.2d 42 (1998) (holding if out-of-court statement is offered "merely for the purpose of establishing what was then said, and not for the purpose of establishing the truth of the statement, the statement is not hearsay").

2025State v. Sinnard, 318 Kan. 261 , 287, 543 P.3d 525 (2024); State v. Vontress, 266 Kan. 248, 253 , 970 P.2d 42 (1998) (holding if out-of-court statement is offered "merely for the purpose of establishing what was then said, and not for the purpose of establishing the truth of the statement, the statement is not hearsay").

12025–2025
State v. Sinnard green
kan · 2024
1 sentence

2025State v. Sinnard, 318 Kan. 261 , 287, 543 P.3d 525 (2024); State v. Vontress, 266 Kan. 248, 253 , 970 P.2d 42 (1998) (holding if out-of-court statement is offered "merely for the purpose of establishing what was then said, and not for the purpose of establishing the truth of the statement, the statement is not hearsay").

12025–2025
State v. Cosby green
kan · 2011
2 sentences

2016State v. Cosby, 293 Kan. 121, 127 , 262 P.3d 285 (2011).

2016State v. Cosby, 293 Kan. 121, 127 , 262 P.3d 285 (2011).

12016–2016

Statutes the citing opinions construe

KS § K.S.A. § 60-460 (8) KS § K.S.A. § 60-261 (6) KS § K.S.A. § 21-5506 (3) KS § K.S.A. § 60-404 (3) KS § K.S.A. § 60-407 (3) KS § K.S.A. § 60-455 (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

CA 26 (1939–2026) IL 19 (1969–2022) TX 15 (1979–2021) MD 13 (1978–2009) KS 8 (2016–2025) KY 7 (1956–2020) GA 6 (1978–2000) LA 6 (1978–2005) NJ 5 (1968–2024) WI 4 (1980–2007) MI 4 (1986–2017) MT 4 (1977–2002) OH 4 (2001–2024) TN 4 (1968–2016) FL 3 (1973–2008) PA 3 (1997–2017) AK 3 (1987–1997) MS 3 (1994–2014) AL 3 (1955–1985) NY 3 (1974–2005) AR 2 (2001–2007)

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