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.
6 Kansas opinions name it 2 courts 1993–2022 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 |
|---|---|---|
Barker v. Wingogreen2 sentences2022Barker v. Wingo, 407 U.S. 514, 530 , 92 S. Ct. 2182 , 33 L. 1993Cf. Barker, 407 U.S. at 523-24, 528 (Court rejected restricting speedy trial right to cases where the accused has demanded a speedy trial); Ekis, Petitioner v. Darr, 217 Kan. 817, 826-27 , 539 P.2d 16 (1975) (after finding that the defendant had failed to comply with the Interstate Agreement on Detainers, this court continued to apply the Barker balancing test). | 1 | 2 |
Harris v. Ron Championgreen1 sentence2022Harris v. Champion, 15 F.3d 1538, 1558-65 (10th Cir. 1994). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Bussart-Savalojagreen1 sentence2022See Bussart-Savaloja, 40 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 |
|---|---|---|
United States v. Eight Thousand Eight Hundred & Fifty Dollars
green
2 sentences2016The Barker balancing inquiry provides an appropriate framework for determining whether the delay here violated the due process right to be heard at a meaningful time." 461 U.S. at 564 . 2015In turn, the Court found: “The Barker balancing inquiry provides an appropriate framework for determining whether the delay here violated the due process right to be heard at a meaningful time.” 461 U.S. at 564 . | 2 | 2015–2016 |
State v. Otero
green
2 sentences2006The Barker balancing test was adopted in Kansas in State v. Otero, 210 Kan. 530 , 502 P.2d 763 (1972). 2006The Barker balancing test was adopted in Kansas in State v. Otero, 210 Kan. 530 , 502 P.2d 763 (1972). | 2 | 1993–2006 |
State v. Weaver
green
2 sentences2006Rather, the Barker balancing test is applied on an ad hoc basis “ 'in which the delay in each case is analyzed according to its particular circumstances.’ ” Weaver, 276 Kan. at 509 . 2006Rather, the Barker balancing test is applied on an ad hoc basis "`in which the delay in each case is analyzed according to its particular circumstances.'" Weaver, 276 Kan. at 509 . | 1 | 2006–2006 |
State v. Goss
green
1 sentence1997Relying on Goss, 245 Kan. 189 , we determined that a lapse of less than 11 months between arrest and trial did not require application of the other factors of the Barker balancing test. | 1 | 1997–1997 |
State v. Hill
green
1 sentence1997The district court did not abuse its discretion in finding that Hill’s constitutional speedy trial rights had not been violated. 257 Kan. at 779 . | 1 | 1997–1997 |
Ekis v. Darr
green
2 sentences1993Cf. Barker, 407 U.S. at 523-24, 528 (Court rejected restricting speedy trial right to cases where the accused has demanded a speedy trial); Ekis, Petitioner v. Darr, 217 Kan. 817, 826-27 , 539 P.2d 16 (1975) (after finding that the defendant had failed to comply with the Interstate Agreement on Detainers, this court continued to apply the Barker balancing test). 1993Cf. Barker, 407 U.S. at 523-24, 528 (Court rejected restricting speedy trial right to cases where the accused has demanded a speedy trial); Ekis, Petitioner v. Darr, 217 Kan. 817, 826-27 , 539 P.2d 16 (1975) (after finding that the defendant had failed to comply with the Interstate Agreement on Detainers, this court continued to apply the Barker balancing test). | 1 | 1993–1993 |
State v. Brown
green
2 sentences1993State v. Brown, 249 Kan. 698 , Syl. ¶ 6, 823 P.2d 190 (1991); State v. Otero, 210 Kan. 530, 532-533 , 502 P.2d 763 (1972). 1993State v. Brown, 249 Kan. 698 , Syl. ¶ 6, 823 P.2d 190 (1991); State v. Otero, 210 Kan. 530, 532-533 , 502 P.2d 763 (1972). | 1 | 1993–1993 |
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.