6 Kansas opinions name it 2 courts 1995–2026 2 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. Butlergreen2 sentences2020See State v. Butler, 307 Kan. 831, 858 , 416 P.3d 116 (2018) ("In a similar fashion, it would make sense for trial counsel to not subpoena Butler's phone records when there was no indication it would support Butler's defense."). 2020See State v. Butler, 307 Kan. 831, 858 , 416 P.3d 116 (2018) ("In a similar fashion, it would make sense for trial counsel to not subpoena Butler's phone records when there was no indication it would support Butler's defense."). | 1 | 3 |
State v. Gallegosgreen1 sentence2026See State v. Gallegos, 313 Kan. 262 , 277, 485 P.3d 622 (2021) (The cumulative error rule does not apply if there are no errors or only a single error.). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Moodygreen2 sentences2018See State v. Reed , 302 Kan. 227 , 236, 352 P.3d 530 (2015) ("[U]ntimeliness of a motion for new trial is a procedural flaw that may affect the defendant's right to counsel; but it does not deprive the district court or a later appellate court of jurisdiction."); see also State v. Moody , 272 Kan. 1199 , 1202, 38 P.3d 659 (2002) (stating that if a district court lacked jurisdiction to enter an order, an appellate court cannot acquire jurisdiction over the subject matter on appeal). 2018See State v. Reed , 302 Kan. 227 , 236, 352 P.3d 530 (2015) ("[U]ntimeliness of a motion for new trial is a procedural flaw that may affect the defendant's right to counsel; but it does not deprive the district court or a later appellate court of jurisdiction."); see also State v. Moody , 272 Kan. 1199 , 1202, 38 P.3d 659 (2002) (stating that if a district court lacked jurisdiction to enter an order, an appellate court cannot acquire jurisdiction over the subject matter on appeal). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Reedgreen2 sentences2018See State v. Reed , 302 Kan. 227 , 236, 352 P.3d 530 (2015) ("[U]ntimeliness of a motion for new trial is a procedural flaw that may affect the defendant's right to counsel; but it does not deprive the district court or a later appellate court of jurisdiction."); see also State v. Moody , 272 Kan. 1199 , 1202, 38 P.3d 659 (2002) (stating that if a district court lacked jurisdiction to enter an order, an appellate court cannot acquire jurisdiction over the subject matter on appeal). 2018See State v. Reed , 302 Kan. 227 , 236, 352 P.3d 530 (2015) ("[U]ntimeliness of a motion for new trial is a procedural flaw that may affect the defendant's right to counsel; but it does not deprive the district court or a later appellate court of jurisdiction."); see also State v. Moody , 272 Kan. 1199 , 1202, 38 P.3d 659 (2002) (stating that if a district court lacked jurisdiction to enter an order, an appellate court cannot acquire jurisdiction over the subject matter on appeal). | 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. Brown
green
2 sentences2019In so holding, we explained that "resolving Butler's claim does not necessitate an analysis of whether Enriquez and Smith remain valid after our decision in Brown , 295 Kan. 181 , 284 P.3d 977 , in which we established a statutory test for determining if alternative means existed. 2019In so holding, we explained that "resolving Butler's claim does not necessitate an analysis of whether Enriquez and Smith remain valid after our decision in Brown , 295 Kan. 181 , 284 P.3d 977 , in which we established a statutory test for determining if alternative means existed. | 2 | 2018–2019 |
Thompson v. State
green
2 sentences2022Nevertheless, our Supreme Court has explained: "'It is within the province of a lawyer to decide what witnesses to call, whether and how to conduct cross-examination, and other strategic and tactical decisions.'" State v. Butler, 307 Kan. 831, 853-54 , 416 P.3d 116 (2018) (quoting Thompson v. State, 293 Kan. 704, 716 , 270 P.3d 1089 [2011]). 2022Nevertheless, our Supreme Court has explained: "'It is within the province of a lawyer to decide what witnesses to call, whether and how to conduct cross-examination, and other strategic and tactical decisions.'" State v. Butler, 307 Kan. 831, 853-54 , 416 P.3d 116 (2018) (quoting Thompson v. State, 293 Kan. 704, 716 , 270 P.3d 1089 [2011]). | 1 | 2022–2022 |
State v. Ruebke
green
2 sentences1995In concluding our discussion of this contention, the following quote from State v. Ruebke, 240 Kan. 493, 500-01 , 731 P.2d 842 , cert. denied 483 U.S. 1024 (1987), is appropriate: "Media publicity alone has never established prejudice per se. 1995In concluding our discussion of this contention, the following quote from State v. Ruebke, 240 Kan. 493, 500-01 , 731 P.2d 842 , cert. denied 483 U.S. 1024 (1987), is appropriate: "Media publicity alone has never established prejudice per se. | 1 | 1995–1995 |
Flowers v. Morris
green
2 sentences1995In concluding our discussion of this contention, the following quote from State v. Ruebke, 240 Kan. 493, 500-01 , 731 P.2d 842 , cert. denied 483 U.S. 1024 (1987), is appropriate: "Media publicity alone has never established prejudice per se. 1995In concluding our discussion of this contention, the following quote from State v. Ruebke, 240 Kan. 493, 500-01 , 731 P.2d 842 , cert. denied 483 U.S. 1024 (1987), is appropriate: “Media publicity alone has never established prejudice per se. | 1 | 1995–1995 |
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.