Arizona rule in Kansas

6 Kansas opinions name it 2 courts 1970–2018 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 (2)

Case	Followed	Cited
Soria v. Stategreen texcrimapp · 1996 · cited in 2 Kansas opinions naming this issue, 2018–2018 2 sentences 2018See State v. Boyston, 231 Ariz. 539, 551 , 298 P.3d 887 (2013) (restating Arizona's rule of law "[t]o prove premeditation, the state must establish actual reflection and more than mere passage of time") (Emphasis added.); People v. Halvorsen, 42 Cal. 4th 379, 419 , 64 Cal. Rptr. 3d 721 , 165 P.3d 512 (2007) (verdict of deliberate and premeditated first-degree murder requires more than showing intent to kill); Soria v. State, 933 S.W.2d 46, 60 (Tex. Crim. 2018See State v. Boyston, 231 Ariz. 539, 551 , 298 P.3d 887 (2013) (restating Arizona's rule of law "[t]o prove premeditation, the state must establish actual reflection and more than mere passage of time") (Emphasis added.); People v. Halvorsen, 42 Cal. 4th 379, 419 , 64 Cal. Rptr. 3d 721 , 165 P.3d 512 (2007) (verdict of deliberate and premeditated first-degree murder requires more than showing intent to kill); Soria v. State, 933 S.W.2d 46, 60 (Tex. Crim.	2	2
State of Arizona v. Eric Boystongreen ariz · 2013 · cited in 2 Kansas opinions naming this issue, 2018–2018 2 sentences 2018See State v. Boyston, 231 Ariz. 539, 551 , 298 P.3d 887 (2013) (restating Arizona's rule of law "[t]o prove premeditation, the state must establish actual reflection and more than mere passage of time") (Emphasis added.); People v. Halvorsen, 42 Cal. 4th 379, 419 , 64 Cal. Rptr. 3d 721 , 165 P.3d 512 (2007) (verdict of deliberate and premeditated first-degree murder requires more than showing intent to kill); Soria v. State, 933 S.W.2d 46, 60 (Tex. Crim. 2018See State v. Boyston, 231 Ariz. 539, 551 , 298 P.3d 887 (2013) (restating Arizona's rule of law "[t]o prove premeditation, the state must establish actual reflection and more than mere passage of time") (Emphasis added.); People v. Halvorsen, 42 Cal. 4th 379, 419 , 64 Cal. Rptr. 3d 721 , 165 P.3d 512 (2007) (verdict of deliberate and premeditated first-degree murder requires more than showing intent to kill); Soria v. State, 933 S.W.2d 46, 60 (Tex. Crim.	2	2

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 (5)

Case	Cited	Years
People v. Halvorsen green cal · 2007 2 sentences 2018See State v. Boyston, 231 Ariz. 539, 551 , 298 P.3d 887 (2013) (restating Arizona's rule of law "[t]o prove premeditation, the state must establish actual reflection and more than mere passage of time") (Emphasis added.); People v. Halvorsen, 42 Cal. 4th 379, 419 , 64 Cal. Rptr. 3d 721 , 165 P.3d 512 (2007) (verdict of deliberate and premeditated first-degree murder requires more than showing intent to kill); Soria v. State, 933 S.W.2d 46, 60 (Tex. Crim. 2018See State v. Boyston, 231 Ariz. 539, 551 , 298 P.3d 887 (2013) (restating Arizona's rule of law "[t]o prove premeditation, the state must establish actual reflection and more than mere passage of time") (Emphasis added.); People v. Halvorsen, 42 Cal. 4th 379, 419 , 64 Cal. Rptr. 3d 721 , 165 P.3d 512 (2007) (verdict of deliberate and premeditated first-degree murder requires more than showing intent to kill); Soria v. State, 933 S.W.2d 46, 60 (Tex. Crim.	2	2018–2018
State v. Carter green arizctapp · 1986 2 sentences 1994The court noted the Arizona rule that a defendant waives all nonjurisdictional defects by pleading guilty, even when the defendant raises a speedy trial issue before 775 pleading guilty. 151 Ariz. at 533 . 1994*The court also noted that the Agreement is governed by federal law and that under both federal and Arizona law “[b]y entering into a guilty plea, a defendant waives his right to claim pre-plea constitutional violations.” 151 Ariz. at 533 .	1	1994–1994
Divine v. Groshong green kan · 1984 2 sentences 1987This would appear to conform with the holding in Divine v. Groshong, 235 Kan. 127, 130 , 679 P.2d 700 (1984): “We start with the premise that the evidence, if relevant, is admissible. 1987This would appear to conform with the holding in Divine v. Groshong, 235 Kan. 127, 130 , 679 P.2d 700 (1984): “We start with the premise that the evidence, if relevant, is admissible.	1	1987–1987
Yeazell v. Copins green ariz · 1965 2 sentences 1980Yeazell v. Copins, 98 Ariz. 109 , states the Arizona rule: No change in the plan may be made by the state without the consent of the employee. 1980Yeazell v. Copins, 98 Ariz. 109 , states the Arizona rule: No change in the plan may be made by the state without the consent of the employee.	1	1980–1980
Jenkins v. Mayflower Insurance Exchange green ariz · 1963 2 sentences 1970The Arizona rule is found in Jenkins v. Mayflower Insurance Exchange, 93 Ariz. 287 , 380 P. 2d 145 . 1970The Arizona rule is found in Jenkins v. Mayflower Insurance Exchange, 93 Ariz. 287 , 380 P. 2d 145 .	1	1970–1970

Where else courts name it

AZ 172 (1946–2026) CA 8 (1946–2014) TX 7 (2005–2012) KS 6 (1970–2018) WA 6 (2001–2010) IL 6 (2011–2018) NV 6 (1950–2017) NM 5 (1973–2017) MI 4 (1942–1988) NY 4 (1983–2012) HI 3 (1981–2004) WY 3 (1991–2015) UT 2 (2004–2006) FL 2 (2014–2016) DE 2 (1994–1995) MA 2 (1987–2006) MT 2 (1978–1980) AK 2 (1992–2023) SD 2 (2012–2016) OR 2 (2001–2026) OK 2 (2022–2022)

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