57 Kansas opinions name it 2 courts 2012–2022 8 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. Plummergreen2 sentences2022The starting point for any alleged jury instruction error is our familiar four-part Plummer test: "[F]or instruction issues, the progression of analysis and corresponding standards of review on appeal are: (1) First, the appellate court should consider the reviewability of the issue from both jurisdiction and preservation viewpoints, exercising an unlimited standard of review; (2) next, the court should use an unlimited review to determine whether the instruction was legally appropriate; (3) then, the court should determine whether there was sufficient evidence, viewed in the light most favora 2022The starting point for any alleged jury instruction error is our familiar four-part Plummer test: "[F]or instruction issues, the progression of analysis and corresponding standards of review on appeal are: (1) First, the appellate court should consider the reviewability of the issue from both jurisdiction and preservation viewpoints, exercising an unlimited standard of review; (2) next, the court should use an unlimited review to determine whether the instruction was legally appropriate; (3) then, the court should determine whether there was sufficient evidence, viewed in the light most favora | 2 | 44 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Kansas. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
State v. Ward
green
2 sentences2022The starting point for any alleged jury instruction error is our familiar four-part Plummer test: "[F]or instruction issues, the progression of analysis and corresponding standards of review on appeal are: (1) First, the appellate court should consider the reviewability of the issue from both jurisdiction and preservation viewpoints, exercising an unlimited standard of review; (2) next, the court should use an unlimited review to determine whether the instruction was legally appropriate; (3) then, the court should determine whether there was sufficient evidence, viewed in the light most favora 2022The starting point for any alleged jury instruction error is our familiar four-part Plummer test: "[F]or instruction issues, the progression of analysis and corresponding standards of review on appeal are: (1) First, the appellate court should consider the reviewability of the issue from both jurisdiction and preservation viewpoints, exercising an unlimited standard of review; (2) next, the court should use an unlimited review to determine whether the instruction was legally appropriate; (3) then, the court should determine whether there was sufficient evidence, viewed in the light most favora | 55 | 2012–2022 |
Bingham v. United States
green
2 sentences2018Standard of Review "For jury instruction issues, the progression of analysis and corresponding standards of review on appeal are: (1) First, the appellate court should consider the reviewability of the issue from both jurisdiction and preservation viewpoints, exercising an unlimited standard of review; *123 (2) next, the court should use an unlimited review to determine whether the instruction was legally appropriate; (3) then, the court should determine whether there was sufficient evidence, viewed in the light most favorable to the defendant or the requesting party, that would have supported 2018Standard of Review "For jury instruction issues, the progression of analysis and corresponding standards of review on appeal are: (1) First, the appellate court should consider the reviewability of the issue from both jurisdiction and preservation viewpoints, exercising an unlimited standard of review; *123 (2) next, the court should use an unlimited review to determine whether the instruction was legally appropriate; (3) then, the court should determine whether there was sufficient evidence, viewed in the light most favorable to the defendant or the requesting party, that would have supported | 34 | 2012–2018 |
Ward v. Kansas
green
2 sentences2021Standard of Review "'For jury instruction issues, the progression of analysis and corresponding standards of review on appeal are: (1) First, the appellate court should consider the reviewability of the issue from both jurisdiction and preservation viewpoints, exercising an unlimited standard of review; (2) next, the court should use an unlimited review to determine whether the instruction was legally appropriate; (3) then, the court should determine whether there was sufficient evidence, viewed in the light most favorable to the defendant or the requesting party, that would have supported the 2021Standard of Review "'For jury instruction issues, the progression of analysis and corresponding standards of review on appeal are: (1) First, the appellate court should consider the reviewability of the issue from both jurisdiction and preservation viewpoints, exercising an unlimited standard of review; (2) next, the court should use an unlimited review to determine whether the instruction was legally appropriate; (3) then, the court should determine whether there was sufficient evidence, viewed in the light most favorable to the defendant or the requesting party, that would have supported the | 7 | 2015–2021 |
State v. Woods
green
2 sentences2021Standard of Review "'For jury instruction issues, the progression of analysis and corresponding standards of review on appeal are: (1) First, the appellate court should consider the reviewability of the issue from both jurisdiction and preservation viewpoints, exercising an unlimited standard of review; (2) next, the court should use an unlimited review to determine whether the instruction was legally appropriate; (3) then, the court should determine whether there was sufficient evidence, viewed in the light most favorable to the defendant or the requesting party, that would have supported the 2021Standard of Review "'For jury instruction issues, the progression of analysis and corresponding standards of review on appeal are: (1) First, the appellate court should consider the reviewability of the issue from both jurisdiction and preservation viewpoints, exercising an unlimited standard of review; (2) next, the court should use an unlimited review to determine whether the instruction was legally appropriate; (3) then, the court should determine whether there was sufficient evidence, viewed in the light most favorable to the defendant or the requesting party, that would have supported the | 5 | 2020–2021 |
State v. Salary
green
2 sentences2016Standard of review To analyze jury instruction issues on appeal, this court follows a stair-step framework: ‘“For jury instruction issues, the progression of analysis and corresponding standards of review on appeal are: (1) First, the appellate court should consider the reviewability of the issue from both jurisdiction and preservation viewpoints, exercising an unlimited standard of review; (2) next, the court should use an unlimited review to determine whether the instruction was legally appropriate; (3) then, the court should determine whether there was sufficient evidence, viewed in the lig 2016Standard of review To analyze jury instruction issues on appeal, this court follows a stair-step framework: ‘“For jury instruction issues, the progression of analysis and corresponding standards of review on appeal are: (1) First, the appellate court should consider the reviewability of the issue from both jurisdiction and preservation viewpoints, exercising an unlimited standard of review; (2) next, the court should use an unlimited review to determine whether the instruction was legally appropriate; (3) then, the court should determine whether there was sufficient evidence, viewed in the lig | 4 | 2015–2016 |
State v. Williams
green
2 sentences2019Appellate courts address jury instruction challenges using a four-step process as follows: "'For jury instruction issues, the progression of analysis and corresponding standards of review on appeal are: (1) First, the appellate court should consider the reviewability of the issue from both jurisdiction and preservation viewpoints, exercising an unlimited standard of review; (2) next, the court should use an unlimited review to determine whether the instruction was legally appropriate; (3) then, the court should determine whether there was sufficient evidence, viewed in the light most favorable 2019App. 2d 725 , Syl. ¶ 1, 216 P.3d 707 [2009] )." Biglow v. Eidenberg, 308 Kan. 873 , 880-81, 424 P.3d 515 (2018). | 3 | 2015–2019 |
State v. Hilt
green
2 sentences2019Appellate courts address jury instruction challenges using a four-step process as follows: "'For jury instruction issues, the progression of analysis and corresponding standards of review on appeal are: (1) First, the appellate court should consider the reviewability of the issue from both jurisdiction and preservation viewpoints, exercising an unlimited standard of review; (2) next, the court should use an unlimited review to determine whether the instruction was legally appropriate; (3) then, the court should determine whether there was sufficient evidence, viewed in the light most favorable 2019Appellate courts address jury instruction challenges using a four-step process as follows: "'For jury instruction issues, the progression of analysis and corresponding standards of review on appeal are: (1) First, the appellate court should consider the reviewability of the issue from both jurisdiction and preservation viewpoints, exercising an unlimited standard of review; (2) next, the court should use an unlimited review to determine whether the instruction was legally appropriate; (3) then, the court should determine whether there was sufficient evidence, viewed in the light most favorable | 2 | 2018–2019 |
Foster ex rel. Foster v. Klaumann
green
2 sentences2018Standard of Review " 'For jury instruction issues, the progression of analysis and corresponding standards of review on appeal are: (1) First, the appellate court should consider the reviewability of the issue from both jurisdiction and preservation viewpoints, exercising an unlimited standard of review; (2) next, the court should use an unlimited review to determine whether the instruction was legally appropriate; (3) then, the court should determine whether there was sufficient evidence, viewed in the light most favorable to the defendant or the requesting party, that would have supported th 2018Standard of Review " 'For jury instruction issues, the progression of analysis and corresponding standards of review on appeal are: (1) First, the appellate court should consider the reviewability of the issue from both jurisdiction and preservation viewpoints, exercising an unlimited standard of review; (2) next, the court should use an unlimited review to determine whether the instruction was legally appropriate; (3) then, the court should determine whether there was sufficient evidence, viewed in the light most favorable to the defendant or the requesting party, that would have supported th | 2 | 2018–2018 |
Burnette v. Eubanks
green
1 sentence2021Under this theory, J and B Oil argues the instruction was proper because Freiden himself testified that he had no intention of paying for the lease if it did not produce, but none of his communications to Bruce and Jesse conveyed that fact. "'For jury instruction issues, the progression of analysis and corresponding standards of review on appeal are: (1) First, the appellate court should consider the reviewability of the issue from both jurisdiction and preservation viewpoints, exercising an unlimited standard of review; (2) next, the court should use an unlimited review to determine whether t | 1 | 2021–2021 |
Unruh v. PURINA MILLS, LLC
green
2 sentences2021Unruh v. Purina Mills, LLC, 289 Kan. 1185, 1197-98 , 221 P.3d 1130 (2009). "'For jury instruction issues, the progression of analysis and corresponding standards of review on appeal are: (1) First, the appellate court should consider the reviewability of the issue from both jurisdiction and preservation viewpoints, exercising an unlimited standard of review; (2) next, the court should use an unlimited review to determine whether the instruction was legally appropriate; (3) then, the court should determine whether there was sufficient evidence, viewed in the light most favorable to the defendan 2021Unruh v. Purina Mills, LLC, 289 Kan. 1185, 1197-98 , 221 P.3d 1130 (2009). "'For jury instruction issues, the progression of analysis and corresponding standards of review on appeal are: (1) First, the appellate court should consider the reviewability of the issue from both jurisdiction and preservation viewpoints, exercising an unlimited standard of review; (2) next, the court should use an unlimited review to determine whether the instruction was legally appropriate; (3) then, the court should determine whether there was sufficient evidence, viewed in the light most favorable to the defendan | 1 | 2021–2021 |
Biglow v. Eidenberg
green
1 sentence2019App. 2d 725 , Syl. ¶ 1, 216 P.3d 707 [2009] )." Biglow v. Eidenberg, 308 Kan. 873 , 880-81, 424 P.3d 515 (2018). | 1 | 2019–2019 |
State v. Qualls
green
2 sentences2019In Qualls I , the majority held that it was error not to give a voluntary manslaughter instruction under an imperfect self-defense theory. 297 Kan. at 72 , 298 P.3d 311 . 2019In Qualls I , the majority held that it was error not to give a voluntary manslaughter instruction under an imperfect self-defense theory. 297 Kan. at 72 , 298 P.3d 311 . | 1 | 2019–2019 |
State v. Haygood
green
1 sentence2019Standard of review " '[F]or instruction issues, the progression of analysis and corresponding standards of review on appeal are: (1) First, the appellate court should consider the reviewability of the issue from both jurisdiction and preservation viewpoints, exercising an unlimited standard of review; (2) next, the court should use an unlimited review to determine whether the instruction was legally appropriate; (3) then, the court should determine whether there was sufficient evidence, viewed in the light most favorable to the defendant or the requesting party, that would have supported the i | 1 | 2019–2019 |
State v. Fisher
green
2 sentences2018Standard of Review For challenges to jury instructions, the progression of analysis and corresponding standards of review on appeal are: " ' "(1) First, the appellate court should consider the reviewability of the issue from both jurisdiction and preservation viewpoints, exercising an unlimited standard of review; (2) next, the court should use an unlimited review to determine whether the instruction was legally appropriate; (3) then, the court should determine whether there was sufficient evidence, viewed in the light most favorable to the defendant or the requesting party, that would have su 2018Standard of Review For challenges to jury instructions, the progression of analysis and corresponding standards of review on appeal are: " ' "(1) First, the appellate court should consider the reviewability of the issue from both jurisdiction and preservation viewpoints, exercising an unlimited standard of review; (2) next, the court should use an unlimited review to determine whether the instruction was legally appropriate; (3) then, the court should determine whether there was sufficient evidence, viewed in the light most favorable to the defendant or the requesting party, that would have su | 1 | 2018–2018 |
State v. Williams
green
2 sentences2015Williams , 295 Kan. at 511-12 , 286 P.3d 195 . 2015Williams , 295 Kan. at 511-12 , 286 P.3d 195 . | 1 | 2015–2015 |
State v. Friday
green
2 sentences2014We outlined the framework for analyzing jury instruction issues in State v. Plummer, 295 Kan. 156 , Syl. ¶ 1, 283 P.3d 202 (2012): *710 “For jury instruction issues, the progression of analysis and corresponding standards of review on appeal are: (1) First, the appellate court should consider tire reviewability of the issue from both jurisdiction and preservation viewpoints, exercising an unlimited standard of review; (2) next, the court should use an unlimited review to determine whether the instruction was legally appropriate; (3) then, the court should determine whether there was sufficient 2014We outlined the framework for analyzing jury instruction issues in State v. Plummer, 295 Kan. 156 , Syl. ¶ 1, 283 P.3d 202 (2012): *710 “For jury instruction issues, the progression of analysis and corresponding standards of review on appeal are: (1) First, the appellate court should consider tire reviewability of the issue from both jurisdiction and preservation viewpoints, exercising an unlimited standard of review; (2) next, the court should use an unlimited review to determine whether the instruction was legally appropriate; (3) then, the court should determine whether there was sufficient | 1 | 2014–2014 |
In the Matter of Brunton
green
1 sentence2014State v. Appleby, 289 Kan. 1017, 1059 , 221 P.3d 525 (2009). | 1 | 2014–2014 |
State v. Appleby
green
1 sentence2014State v. Appleby, 289 Kan. 1017, 1059 , 221 P.3d 525 (2009). | 1 | 2014–2014 |
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.