7 Kansas opinions name it 2 courts 2008–2020 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.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
Graphic Technology, Inc. v. Pitney Bowes Inc.green2 sentences2009See, e.g., Graphic Technology, Inc. v. Pitney Bowes, Inc., 968 F. Supp. 602 (D. 2009See, e.g., Graphic Technology, Inc. v. Pitney Bowes, Inc., 968 F.Supp. 602 *683 (D.Kan.1997); Pizza Management, Inc. v. Pizza Hut, Inc., 737 F.Supp. 1154 (D.Kan. 1990). | 1 | 1 |
In Re Dennisgreen1 sentence2008See Dennis, 286 Kan. at 737-38 . | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Kansas. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
State v. Arrocha
green
2 sentences2016App. 2d 120, 126 , 39 P.3d 101 , rev. denied 273 Kan. 1037 (2002) (Essentially, Hines created “a unique exception [to the rule attributing defense counsel’s actions to defendant] for circumstances when defense counsel and the defendant openly disagree about setting a trial date beyond the statutory time limit.”). 2014Generally . . . defense counsel’s actions or statements that result in delay bind tire defendant.” (Emphasis added.) Arrocha, 30 Kan. | 2 | 2014–2016 |
Cresto v. Cresto
green
2 sentences2020Cresto v. Cresto, 302 Kan. 820, 845 , 358 P.3d 831 (2015). 2020Cresto v. Cresto, 302 Kan. 820, 845 , 358 P.3d 831 (2015). | 1 | 2020–2020 |
Law v. Law Co. Building Associates
green
2 sentences2012Law, 42 Kan. 2012The majority concluded the Ferrell court “recognized that the unique rule of accrual upon execution for reformation claims should be limited to situations where there is a challenge to a deed.” Law, 42 Kan. | 1 | 2012–2012 |
State v. Shirley
green
1 sentence2012Applying this unique requirement, the Shirley court concluded that when the State simply alleges an “ ‘overt act in furtherance of the conspiracy,’ such language fails to adequately inform the accused of the charges against him or her and limits his or her ability to prepare a defense.” Shirley, 277 Kan. at 665 . | 1 | 2012–2012 |
Pizza Management, Inc. v. Pizza Hut, Inc.
green
1 sentence2009See, e.g., Graphic Technology, Inc. v. Pitney Bowes, Inc., 968 F.Supp. 602 *683 (D.Kan.1997); Pizza Management, Inc. v. Pizza Hut, Inc., 737 F.Supp. 1154 (D.Kan. 1990). | 1 | 2009–2009 |
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.