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 2008–2020 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. Gunbygreen2 sentences2020See also State v. Gunby, 282 Kan. 39, 56 , 144 P.3d 647 (2006) (describing the steps for analysis of 60-455 evidence). 2020See also State v. Gunby, 282 Kan. 39, 56 , 144 P.3d 647 (2006) (describing the steps for analysis of 60-455 evidence). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Cheeksred2 sentences2015See Cheeks, 298 Kan. at 8-13 . 2015See Cheeks, 298 Kan. at 8-13 . | 1 | 1 |
Messiah v. Duncangreen1 sentence2008Similarly, in Messiah v. Duncan, 435 F.3d 186, 198-200 (2d Cir. 2006), the Second Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court’s rejection of a Batson challenge, although the lower court did not label or explicitly delineate the steps of its analysis. | 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. Williams
green
2 sentences2016These steps are: ‘“(1) determining whether the appellate court can or should review the issue, i.e., whether there is a lack of appellate jurisdiction or a failure to preserve the issue for appeal; (2) considering the merits of foe claim to determine whether error occurred below; and (3) assessing whether foe error requires reversal, i.e., whether the error can be deemed harmless.’” State v. BolzeSann, 302 Kan. 198, 209 , 352 P.3d 511 (2015) (quoting State v. Williams, 295 Kan. 506, 510 , 286 P.3d 195 [2012]). 2016These steps are: ‘“(1) determining whether the appellate court can or should review the issue, i.e., whether there is a lack of appellate jurisdiction or a failure to preserve the issue for appeal; (2) considering the merits of foe claim to determine whether error occurred below; and (3) assessing whether foe error requires reversal, i.e., whether the error can be deemed harmless.’” State v. BolzeSann, 302 Kan. 198, 209 , 352 P.3d 511 (2015) (quoting State v. Williams, 295 Kan. 506, 510 , 286 P.3d 195 [2012]). | 1 | 2016–2016 |
State v. Bolze-Sann
green
2 sentences2016These steps are: ‘“(1) determining whether the appellate court can or should review the issue, i.e., whether there is a lack of appellate jurisdiction or a failure to preserve the issue for appeal; (2) considering the merits of foe claim to determine whether error occurred below; and (3) assessing whether foe error requires reversal, i.e., whether the error can be deemed harmless.’” State v. BolzeSann, 302 Kan. 198, 209 , 352 P.3d 511 (2015) (quoting State v. Williams, 295 Kan. 506, 510 , 286 P.3d 195 [2012]). 2016These steps are: ‘“(1) determining whether the appellate court can or should review the issue, i.e., whether there is a lack of appellate jurisdiction or a failure to preserve the issue for appeal; (2) considering the merits of foe claim to determine whether error occurred below; and (3) assessing whether foe error requires reversal, i.e., whether the error can be deemed harmless.’” State v. BolzeSann, 302 Kan. 198, 209 , 352 P.3d 511 (2015) (quoting State v. Williams, 295 Kan. 506, 510 , 286 P.3d 195 [2012]). | 1 | 2016–2016 |
State v. Edwards
green
1 sentence2013Nevertheless, we reiterate and stress what we said in Edwards, 291 Kan. at 552 : The better practice would be to include the mere association or presence language when a defense is based on the theory that a defendant was merely present and did not actively aid and abet a crime. | 1 | 2013–2013 |
Noland v. Sears, Roebuck & Co.
green
2 sentences2010In holding the plaintiff s negligence per se claim should have been submitted to the jury, the Kansas Supreme Court stated: “It is the unquestioned rule of this jurisdiction that the breach of a duty imposed by law or ordinance constitutes negligence per se, providing a basis for the recovery of damages proximately resulting therefrom. [Citation omitted.]” 207 Kan. at 74-75 . 2010In holding the plaintiff's negligence per se claim should have been submitted to the jury, the Kansas Supreme Court stated: "It is the unquestioned rule of this jurisdiction that the breach of a duty imposed by law or ordinance constitutes negligence per se, providing a basis for the recovery of damages proximately resulting therefrom. [Citation omitted.]" 207 Kan. at 74-75 , 483 P.2d 1029 . | 1 | 2010–2010 |
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.
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.