6 Kansas opinions name it 2 courts 1970–2026 1 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 |
|---|---|---|
Chriestenson v. Russell Stover Candiesgreen1 sentence2013See Chriestenson, 46 Kan. | 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. Buffington
neutral
2 sentences1977Long ago this aspect of the rule was given expression in State v. Buffington, 66 Kan. 706 , 72 Pac. 213 : “ ‘The defendant in a criminal prosecution has a right to have the court instruct the jury in the law applicable to his contention, if it be supported by substantial evidence, however weak, unsatisfactory or inconclusive it may appear to the court. . . . [The test is] whether there is any substantial evidence tending to prove an inferior degree of the offense. 1977Long ago this aspect of the rule was given expression in State v. Buffington, 66 Kan. 706 , 72 Pac. 213 : “ ‘The defendant in a criminal prosecution has a right to have the court instruct the jury in the law applicable to his contention, if it be supported by substantial evidence, however weak, unsatisfactory or inconclusive it may appear to the court. . . . [The test is] whether there is any substantial evidence tending to prove an inferior degree of the offense. | 2 | 1974–1977 |
State v. Proctor
green
2 sentences2026To support his argument on this aspect of the test, Rogers compares his circumstances to those in State v. Proctor, 47 Kan. 2026App. 2d 889, 898 , 280 P.3d 839 (2012) (Proctor I), and State v. Proctor, No. 104,697, 2013 WL 6726286 (Kan. | 1 | 2026–2026 |
Bunting v. Speek
green
1 sentence1979This aspect of the rule was emphasized in Kirkpatrick v. Kirkpatrick, 112 Kan. 314 , 211 Pac. 146 (1922), where the court commented on Bunting v. Speek, 41 Kan. 424 , 21 Pac. 288 (1889), in which the rule favoring vested remainders was first recognized. | 1 | 1979–1979 |
Kirkpatrick v. Kirkpatrick
green
2 sentences1979This aspect of the rule was emphasized in Kirkpatrick v. Kirkpatrick, 112 Kan. 314 , 211 Pac. 146 (1922), where the court commented on Bunting v. Speek, 41 Kan. 424 , 21 Pac. 288 (1889), in which the rule favoring vested remainders was first recognized. 1979This aspect of the rule was emphasized in Kirkpatrick v. Kirkpatrick, 112 Kan. 314 , 211 Pac. 146 (1922), where the court commented on Bunting v. Speek, 41 Kan. 424 , 21 Pac. 288 (1889), in which the rule favoring vested remainders was first recognized. | 1 | 1979–1979 |
Tipton v. Topeka Railway Co.
green
2 sentences1970The latter aspect of the rule was stated in Tipton v. Street Railway Co., 89 Kan. 451 , 132 Pac. 189 , thus: *724 “Evidence of subsequent repairs and alterations is competent for the purpose of showing defendant’s control over the place where the injury was received.” (Syl. 1970The latter aspect of the rule was stated in Tipton v. Street Railway Co., 89 Kan. 451 , 132 Pac. 189 , thus: *724 “Evidence of subsequent repairs and alterations is competent for the purpose of showing defendant’s control over the place where the injury was received.” (Syl. | 1 | 1970–1970 |
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.