supplemental instruction in Kansas

7 Kansas opinions name it 2 courts 1940–2014 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 (5)

Case	Followed	Cited
Commonwealth v. Patrygreen massappct · 2000 · cited in 1 Kansas opinions naming this issue, 2014–2014 2 sentences 2014Compare State v. Swanson, 112 Hawaii 343, 353-54 , 145 P.3d 886, 896-97 (Ct. App. 2006) (determining that right to public trial was not violated when trial judge responded to jury questions after hours and public could not be present), State v. Sublett, 176 Wash. 2d 58, 70-78 , 292 P.3d 715 (2012) (determining right to public trial not implicated when district court personally responded to a jury question inside the juiy room), with Commonwealth v. Patry, 48 Mass. App. Ct. 470, 473-76 , 722 N.E.2d 979 (2000) (holding right to a public trial was violated when judge entered jury room to issue a 2014Compare State v. Swanson, 112 Hawaii 343, 353-54 , 145 P.3d 886, 896-97 (Ct. App. 2006) (determining that right to public trial was not violated when trial judge responded to jury questions after hours and public could not be present), State v. Sublett, 176 Wash. 2d 58, 70-78 , 292 P.3d 715 (2012) (determining right to public trial not implicated when district court personally responded to a jury question inside the juiy room), with Commonwealth v. Patry, 48 Mass. App. Ct. 470, 473-76 , 722 N.E.2d 979 (2000) (holding right to a public trial was violated when judge entered jury room to issue a	1	1
State v. Sublettgreen wash · 2012 · cited in 1 Kansas opinions naming this issue, 2014–2014 2 sentences 2014Compare State v. Swanson, 112 Hawaii 343, 353-54 , 145 P.3d 886, 896-97 (Ct. App. 2006) (determining that right to public trial was not violated when trial judge responded to jury questions after hours and public could not be present), State v. Sublett, 176 Wash. 2d 58, 70-78 , 292 P.3d 715 (2012) (determining right to public trial not implicated when district court personally responded to a jury question inside the juiy room), with Commonwealth v. Patry, 48 Mass. App. Ct. 470, 473-76 , 722 N.E.2d 979 (2000) (holding right to a public trial was violated when judge entered jury room to issue a 2014Compare State v. Swanson, 112 Hawaii 343, 353-54 , 145 P.3d 886, 896-97 (Ct. App. 2006) (determining that right to public trial was not violated when trial judge responded to jury questions after hours and public could not be present), State v. Sublett, 176 Wash. 2d 58, 70-78 , 292 P.3d 715 (2012) (determining right to public trial not implicated when district court personally responded to a jury question inside the juiy room), with Commonwealth v. Patry, 48 Mass. App. Ct. 470, 473-76 , 722 N.E.2d 979 (2000) (holding right to a public trial was violated when judge entered jury room to issue a	1	1
State v. Swansongreen hawapp · 2006 · cited in 1 Kansas opinions naming this issue, 2014–2014 2 sentences 2014Compare State v. Swanson, 112 Hawaii 343, 353-54 , 145 P.3d 886, 896-97 (Ct. App. 2006) (determining that right to public trial was not violated when trial judge responded to jury questions after hours and public could not be present), State v. Sublett, 176 Wash. 2d 58, 70-78 , 292 P.3d 715 (2012) (determining right to public trial not implicated when district court personally responded to a jury question inside the juiy room), with Commonwealth v. Patry, 48 Mass. App. Ct. 470, 473-76 , 722 N.E.2d 979 (2000) (holding right to a public trial was violated when judge entered jury room to issue a 2014Compare State v. Swanson, 112 Hawaii 343, 353-54 , 145 P.3d 886, 896-97 (Ct. App. 2006) (determining that right to public trial was not violated when trial judge responded to jury questions after hours and public could not be present), State v. Sublett, 176 Wash. 2d 58, 70-78 , 292 P.3d 715 (2012) (determining right to public trial not implicated when district court personally responded to a jury question inside the juiy room), with Commonwealth v. Patry, 48 Mass. App. Ct. 470, 473-76 , 722 N.E.2d 979 (2000) (holding right to a public trial was violated when judge entered jury room to issue a	1	1
Allen v. United Statesgreen · 1896 · cited in 1 Kansas opinions naming this issue, 2009–2009 1 sentence 2009See Allen v. United States, 164 U.S. 492 , 41 L.	1	1
Petersime Incubator Co. v. Fergusongreen kan · 1936 · cited in 1 Kansas opinions naming this issue, 1940–1940 2 sentences 1940See, also, Petersime Incubator Co. v. Ferguson, 143 Kan. 151, 157-159 , 53 P. 2d 505 ; and Anno. 1940See, also, Petersime Incubator Co. v. Ferguson, 143 Kan. 151, 157-159 , 53 P. 2d 505 ; and Anno.	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 (11)

Case	Cited	Years
State v. Lovely green kan · 1985 2 sentences 2011See K.S.A. 22-3420(3); State v. Lovely, 237 Kan. 838, 845 , 703 P.2d 828 (1985) (In response to a request from the jury, the trial court has the discretion to provide supplemental instructions.). 2011See K.S.A. 22-3420(3); State v. Lovely, 237 Kan. 838, 845 , 703 P.2d 828 (1985) (In response to a request from the jury, the trial court has the discretion to provide supplemental instructions.).	1	2011–2011
State v. McGinnes green kanctapp · 1998 2 sentences 1998The Court of Appeals also found that the trial judge’s giving of a supplemental instruction without consulting with counsel was error but again 127 determined that it was harmless error. 24 Kan. 1998*Additionally, the court could not find anything prejudicial or objectionable in the trial court’s supplemental instruction, and even after the instruction, defense counsel again made no effort to voir dire the jury to see if a problem existed.” 24 Kan.	1	1998–1998
State v. Patterson green kan · 1988 2 sentences 1997In State v. Patterson, 243 Kan. 262, 268 , 755 P.2d 551 (1988), the trial court added the following to PIK Grim. 2d 56.01: “There is no specific time element required to establish premeditation.” Again, we stated that we did not approve of the instruction but held that the PIK definition together with the additional phrase on time correctly stated the law. 243 Kan. at 269. 1997In State v. Patterson, 243 Kan. 262, 268 , 755 P.2d 551 (1988), the trial court added the following to PIK Grim. 2d 56.01: “There is no specific time element required to establish premeditation.” Again, we stated that we did not approve of the instruction but held that the PIK definition together with the additional phrase on time correctly stated the law. 243 Kan. at 269.	1	1997–1997
State v. Martinez neutral kan · 1978 1 sentence 1997The court held: ‘While we do not approve the supplemental instruction given by the trial court, under the facts presented here no prejudicial error is shown.” 223 Kan. at 538 .	1	1997–1997
State v. Ruebke green kan · 1987 1 sentence 1994If the court were to attempt to re-read the record to attempt to answer the questions you have asked, I fear that we would re-read most of the testimony in this trial.’ “The defendant did not object to the giving of the supplemental instruction at the time of trial.” 240 Kan. at 510-11 .	1	1994–1994
Baxter v. Brown green kan · 1910 2 sentences 1940(Smith v. Bridgeport Machine Co., 151 Kan. 444 , 100 P. 2d 65 .) Our civil code has greatly relaxed the older rules of pleading and now permits a defendant whose property has been wrongfully attached to join with his answer .to plaintiff’s petition (by special leave of court) a supplemental claim for damages for such wrongful attachment, which may be tried along with his defense to the principal action (Baxter v. Brown, 83 Kan. 302 , 111 Pac. 430 ; Oil & Gas Co. v. Wasson, 111 Kan. 124, 127-128 , 206 Pac. 320 ; Bank v. Goerber, 113 Kan. 498 , 215 Pac. 285 and syl. 3; Starkey v. Almena State Ba 1940(Smith v. Bridgeport Machine Co., 151 Kan. 444 , 100 P. 2d 65 .) Our civil code has greatly relaxed the older rules of pleading and now permits a defendant whose property has been wrongfully attached to join with his answer .to plaintiff’s petition (by special leave of court) a supplemental claim for damages for such wrongful attachment, which may be tried along with his defense to the principal action (Baxter v. Brown, 83 Kan. 302 , 111 Pac. 430 ; Oil & Gas Co. v. Wasson, 111 Kan. 124, 127-128 , 206 Pac. 320 ; Bank v. Goerber, 113 Kan. 498 , 215 Pac. 285 and syl. 3; Starkey v. Almena State Ba	1	1940–1940
Argonia Oil & Gas Co. v. Wasson neutral kan · 1922 2 sentences 1940(Smith v. Bridgeport Machine Co., 151 Kan. 444 , 100 P. 2d 65 .) Our civil code has greatly relaxed the older rules of pleading and now permits a defendant whose property has been wrongfully attached to join with his answer .to plaintiff’s petition (by special leave of court) a supplemental claim for damages for such wrongful attachment, which may be tried along with his defense to the principal action (Baxter v. Brown, 83 Kan. 302 , 111 Pac. 430 ; Oil & Gas Co. v. Wasson, 111 Kan. 124, 127-128 , 206 Pac. 320 ; Bank v. Goerber, 113 Kan. 498 , 215 Pac. 285 and syl. 3; Starkey v. Almena State Ba 1940(Smith v. Bridgeport Machine Co., 151 Kan. 444 , 100 P. 2d 65 .) Our civil code has greatly relaxed the older rules of pleading and now permits a defendant whose property has been wrongfully attached to join with his answer .to plaintiff’s petition (by special leave of court) a supplemental claim for damages for such wrongful attachment, which may be tried along with his defense to the principal action (Baxter v. Brown, 83 Kan. 302 , 111 Pac. 430 ; Oil & Gas Co. v. Wasson, 111 Kan. 124, 127-128 , 206 Pac. 320 ; Bank v. Goerber, 113 Kan. 498 , 215 Pac. 285 and syl. 3; Starkey v. Almena State Ba	1	1940–1940
Deerfield State Bank v. Coerber green kan · 1923 2 sentences 1940(Smith v. Bridgeport Machine Co., 151 Kan. 444 , 100 P. 2d 65 .) Our civil code has greatly relaxed the older rules of pleading and now permits a defendant whose property has been wrongfully attached to join with his answer .to plaintiff’s petition (by special leave of court) a supplemental claim for damages for such wrongful attachment, which may be tried along with his defense to the principal action (Baxter v. Brown, 83 Kan. 302 , 111 Pac. 430 ; Oil & Gas Co. v. Wasson, 111 Kan. 124, 127-128 , 206 Pac. 320 ; Bank v. Goerber, 113 Kan. 498 , 215 Pac. 285 and syl. 3; Starkey v. Almena State Ba 1940(Smith v. Bridgeport Machine Co., 151 Kan. 444 , 100 P. 2d 65 .) Our civil code has greatly relaxed the older rules of pleading and now permits a defendant whose property has been wrongfully attached to join with his answer .to plaintiff’s petition (by special leave of court) a supplemental claim for damages for such wrongful attachment, which may be tried along with his defense to the principal action (Baxter v. Brown, 83 Kan. 302 , 111 Pac. 430 ; Oil & Gas Co. v. Wasson, 111 Kan. 124, 127-128 , 206 Pac. 320 ; Bank v. Goerber, 113 Kan. 498 , 215 Pac. 285 and syl. 3; Starkey v. Almena State Ba	1	1940–1940
Starkey v. Almena State Bank neutral kan · 1930 2 sentences 1940(Smith v. Bridgeport Machine Co., 151 Kan. 444 , 100 P. 2d 65 .) Our civil code has greatly relaxed the older rules of pleading and now permits a defendant whose property has been wrongfully attached to join with his answer .to plaintiff’s petition (by special leave of court) a supplemental claim for damages for such wrongful attachment, which may be tried along with his defense to the principal action (Baxter v. Brown, 83 Kan. 302 , 111 Pac. 430 ; Oil & Gas Co. v. Wasson, 111 Kan. 124, 127-128 , 206 Pac. 320 ; Bank v. Goerber, 113 Kan. 498 , 215 Pac. 285 and syl. 3; Starkey v. Almena State Ba 1940(Smith v. Bridgeport Machine Co., 151 Kan. 444 , 100 P. 2d 65 .) Our civil code has greatly relaxed the older rules of pleading and now permits a defendant whose property has been wrongfully attached to join with his answer .to plaintiff’s petition (by special leave of court) a supplemental claim for damages for such wrongful attachment, which may be tried along with his defense to the principal action (Baxter v. Brown, 83 Kan. 302 , 111 Pac. 430 ; Oil & Gas Co. v. Wasson, 111 Kan. 124, 127-128 , 206 Pac. 320 ; Bank v. Goerber, 113 Kan. 498 , 215 Pac. 285 and syl. 3; Starkey v. Almena State Ba	1	1940–1940
Allison v. Borer green kan · 1930 2 sentences 1940(Smith v. Bridgeport Machine Co., 151 Kan. 444 , 100 P. 2d 65 .) Our civil code has greatly relaxed the older rules of pleading and now permits a defendant whose property has been wrongfully attached to join with his answer .to plaintiff’s petition (by special leave of court) a supplemental claim for damages for such wrongful attachment, which may be tried along with his defense to the principal action (Baxter v. Brown, 83 Kan. 302 , 111 Pac. 430 ; Oil & Gas Co. v. Wasson, 111 Kan. 124, 127-128 , 206 Pac. 320 ; Bank v. Goerber, 113 Kan. 498 , 215 Pac. 285 and syl. 3; Starkey v. Almena State Ba 1940(Smith v. Bridgeport Machine Co., 151 Kan. 444 , 100 P. 2d 65 .) Our civil code has greatly relaxed the older rules of pleading and now permits a defendant whose property has been wrongfully attached to join with his answer .to plaintiff’s petition (by special leave of court) a supplemental claim for damages for such wrongful attachment, which may be tried along with his defense to the principal action (Baxter v. Brown, 83 Kan. 302 , 111 Pac. 430 ; Oil & Gas Co. v. Wasson, 111 Kan. 124, 127-128 , 206 Pac. 320 ; Bank v. Goerber, 113 Kan. 498 , 215 Pac. 285 and syl. 3; Starkey v. Almena State Ba	1	1940–1940
Smith v. Bridgeport Machine Co. green kan · 1940 2 sentences 1940(Smith v. Bridgeport Machine Co., 151 Kan. 444 , 100 P. 2d 65 .) Our civil code has greatly relaxed the older rules of pleading and now permits a defendant whose property has been wrongfully attached to join with his answer .to plaintiff’s petition (by special leave of court) a supplemental claim for damages for such wrongful attachment, which may be tried along with his defense to the principal action (Baxter v. Brown, 83 Kan. 302 , 111 Pac. 430 ; Oil & Gas Co. v. Wasson, 111 Kan. 124, 127-128 , 206 Pac. 320 ; Bank v. Goerber, 113 Kan. 498 , 215 Pac. 285 and syl. 3; Starkey v. Almena State Ba 1940(Smith v. Bridgeport Machine Co., 151 Kan. 444 , 100 P. 2d 65 .) Our civil code has greatly relaxed the older rules of pleading and now permits a defendant whose property has been wrongfully attached to join with his answer .to plaintiff’s petition (by special leave of court) a supplemental claim for damages for such wrongful attachment, which may be tried along with his defense to the principal action (Baxter v. Brown, 83 Kan. 302 , 111 Pac. 430 ; Oil & Gas Co. v. Wasson, 111 Kan. 124, 127-128 , 206 Pac. 320 ; Bank v. Goerber, 113 Kan. 498 , 215 Pac. 285 and syl. 3; Starkey v. Almena State Ba	1	1940–1940

Statutes the citing opinions construe

KS § K.S.A. § 22-3420 (4)

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 198 (1891–2026) CA 95 (1926–2026) TX 84 (1935–2025) MI 62 (1936–2025) IL 62 (1898–2026) MA 58 (1976–2026) OH 56 (1972–2025) MD 55 (1932–2026) NE 51 (1930–2026) TN 44 (1987–2024) CO 39 (1949–2026) CT 34 (1953–2021) PA 32 (1901–2025) NJ 30 (1964–2026) WA 29 (1915–2023) DC 22 (1974–2024) UT 21 (1954–2026) IN 21 (1980–2019) IA 21 (1995–2025) FL 19 (1986–2024) AL 18 (1912–2014) OR 18 (1954–2026) WV 15 (1931–2025) NC 13 (1988–2022) SC 13 (1983–2023) ID 11 (1983–2025) WY 11 (1968–2021) MO 11 (1962–2021) MS 10 (1970–2017) RI 10 (1983–2025) WI 10 (1975–2026) AK 9 (1966–2022) VT 8 (1936–2020) ND 8 (1972–2023) GA 8 (1950–2021) AZ 8 (1996–2019) HI 8 (1980–2011) KS 7 (1940–2014) DE 7 (1973–2026) NM 6 (1963–2018) OK 6 (1912–2004) AR 5 (1949–1970) MT 5 (1992–2011) LA 4 (1985–2009) VA 3 (1988–1999) MN 3 (1980–2016) NV 3 (2019–2019) NH 2 (1992–2009) ME 2 (2002–2003) VI 2 (2010–2013)

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