Already have an account? Sign in instead.
You stay signed in for 30 days on this browser.
Continue with Google Continue with MicrosoftNo account yet? Create a free one.
We sent a six-digit code.
It expires in ten minutes, works once, and only in this browser. Five wrong tries void it. Send another code.
Your account is live and the Cloudflare checks are off for this browser.
7 Kansas opinions name it 1 courts 1996–2001 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 |
|---|---|---|
State v. Nelsongreen2 sentences1997Dickerson v. Kansas Dept. of Revenue, 253 Kan. 843, 844 , 863 P.2d 364 (1993); see State v. Nelson, 249 Kan. 689, 692 , 822 P.2d 53 (1991). *706 One of the first cases in the country to analyze whether the formula technique should be allowed in opening or closing arguments was Botta v. Brunner, 26 N.J. 82 , 138 A.2d 713 (1958). 1997Dickerson v. Kansas Dept. of Revenue, 253 Kan. 843, 844 , 863 P.2d 364 (1993); see State v. Nelson, 249 Kan. 689, 692 , 822 P.2d 53 (1991). *706 One of the first cases in the country to analyze whether the formula technique should be allowed in opening or closing arguments was Botta v. Brunner, 26 N.J. 82 , 138 A.2d 713 (1958). | 2 | 3 |
State v. Mertzgreen2 sentences1997See State v. Mertz, 258 Kan. 745, 748 , 907 P.2d 847 (1995). 1997See State v. Mertz, 258 Kan. 745, 748 , 907 P.2d 847 (1995). | 2 | 2 |
Dickerson v. Kansas Department of Revenuegreen2 sentences1997Dickerson v. Kansas Dept. of Revenue, 253 Kan. 843, 844 , 863 P.2d 364 (1993); see State v. Nelson, 249 Kan. 689, 692 , 822 P.2d 53 (1991). *706 One of the first cases in the country to analyze whether the formula technique should be allowed in opening or closing arguments was Botta v. Brunner, 26 N.J. 82 , 138 A.2d 713 (1958). 1997Dickerson v. Kansas Dept. of Revenue, 253 Kan. 843, 844 , 863 P.2d 364 (1993); see State v. Nelson, 249 Kan. 689, 692 , 822 P.2d 53 (1991). *706 One of the first cases in the country to analyze whether the formula technique should be allowed in opening or closing arguments was Botta v. Brunner, 26 N.J. 82 , 138 A.2d 713 (1958). | 1 | 3 |
Botta v. Brunnergreen2 sentences1997Dickerson v. Kansas Dept. of Revenue, 253 Kan. 843, 844 , 863 P.2d 364 (1993); see State v. Nelson, 249 Kan. 689, 692 , 822 P.2d 53 (1991). *706 One of the first cases in the country to analyze whether the formula technique should be allowed in opening or closing arguments was Botta v. Brunner, 26 N.J. 82 , 138 A.2d 713 (1958). 1997Dickerson v. Kansas Dept. of Revenue, 253 Kan. 843, 844 , 863 P.2d 364 (1993); see State v. Nelson, 249 Kan. 689, 692 , 822 P.2d 53 (1991). *706 One of the first cases in the country to analyze whether the formula technique should be allowed in opening or closing arguments was Botta v. Brunner, 26 N.J. 82 , 138 A.2d 713 (1958). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Kansas. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Lemuz Ex Rel. Lemuz v. Fieser
green
2 sentences2001When determining a question of law, this court may exercise an unlimited de novo standard of review.” Lemuz v. Fieser, 261 Kan. 936 , Syl. ¶ 1, 933 P.2d 134 (1997). 2001When determining a question of law, this court may exercise an unlimited de novo standard of review.” Lemuz v. Fieser, 261 Kan. 936 , Syl. ¶ 1, 933 P.2d 134 (1997). | 1 | 2001–2001 |
State v. Conley
red
2 sentences2001This court recently held in State v. Conley, 270 Kan. 18 , Syl. ¶ 3, 11 P.3d 1147 (2000), that the Kansas hard 40 sentencing statute violates neither the Sixth Amendment right to jury trial nor the Fourteenth Amendment Due Process Clause of the United States Constitution. 2001This court recently held in State v. Conley, 270 Kan. 18 , Syl. ¶ 3, 11 P.3d 1147 (2000), that the Kansas hard 40 sentencing statute violates neither the Sixth Amendment right to jury trial nor the Fourteenth Amendment Due Process Clause of the United States Constitution. | 1 | 2001–2001 |
Harris v. Richards
green
2 sentences1996Harris v. Richards, 254 Kan. 549, 552 , 867 P.2d 325 (1994); Spivey v. Safeco Ins. 1996Harris v. Richards, 254 Kan. 549, 552 , 867 P.2d 325 (1994); Spivey v. Safeco Ins. | 1 | 1996–1996 |
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.