History:
L. 1957, ch. 256, § 5; L. 1976, ch. 207, § 5; L. 1978, ch. 158, § 2; L. 1979, ch. 124, § 1; L. 1981, ch. 182, § 1; Repealed, L. 1982, ch. 182, § 150; January 1, 1983.
CASE ANNOTATIONS
1. Mentioned; review of waiver order pursuant to K.S.A. 38-808 upheld; application of other laws. In re Templeton, 202 Kan. 89, 96, 447 P.2d 158.
2. Privileged information extends only to records filed in district court under code; personal testimony admitted; conviction as adult affirmed. State v. Cox, 225 Kan. 143, 145, 587 P.2d 890.
3. Cited in holding probable cause to arrest existed without evidence improperly obtained hereunder. State v. Stewart, 225 Kan. 410, 411, 412, 591 P.2d 166.
4. Applied; question of propriety of delinquency adjudication in lower court not moot; dismissal of appeal reversed. State v. Bolden, 2 Kan. App. 2d 470, 472, 581 P.2d 1195.
5. Parent in deprived child action is a party to the action and has right of access to the court's social file. Nunn v. Morrison, 227 Kan. 730, 733, 734, 735, 736, 738, 608 P.2d 1359.
6. Subsection (b)(4) allows trial court to release information on juveniles to news media; no abuse of discretion; affirmed. In re Hollingshead, 228 Kan. 708, 709, 710, 711, 619 P.2d 1160.
Nunn v. Morrison, 608 P.2d 1359 (Kan. 1980). · cites it 7דThe statute in question in this case is K.S.A. 1979 Supp. 38-805, which states: “(a) The record in the district court for proceedings pursuant to the Kansas juvenile code shall consist of the petition, process and the service thereof, orders and writs, and reports and…”
State v. Stewart, 591 P.2d 166 (Kan. 1979). “38-805c[a]) could not be delegated. The court further found the photographs and fingerprint card from the juvenile court had been improperly obtained (as not being in compliance with K.”
In re the Interest of Hollingshead, 619 P.2d 1160 (Kan. 1980). · cites it 5דK.S.A. 1979 Supp. 38-805, in effect at all times herein, provides: “(a) The record in the district court for proceedings pursuant to the Kansas juvenile code shall consist of the petition, process and the service thereof, orders and writs, and reports and evaluations received or…”
State v. Cox, 587 P.2d 890 (Kan. 1978). · cites it 5דFirst, he argues such evidence was confidential under K.S.A. 38-805. Secondly, he contends the evidence of the prior crime although not governed by K.”
State v. Bolden, 581 P.2d 1195 (Kan. Ct. App. 1978). “While it is true that K.S.A. 1977 Supp. 38-805 provides that juvenile records are to be closed in all except very limited circumstances, a review of Kansas cases shows that a juvenile’s record has been held to be subject to public scrutiny for a variety of reasons.”
— K.S.A. § 38-805(b)(4) — 1 case
In re the Interest of Hollingshead, 619 P.2d 1160 (Kan. 1980). “K.S.A. 1979 Supp. 38-805, in effect at all times herein, provides: “(a) The record in the district court for proceedings pursuant to the Kansas juvenile code shall consist of the petition, process and the service thereof, orders and writs, and reports and evaluations received or…”
— K.S.A. § 38-805(h) — 1 case
Nunn v. Morrison, 608 P.2d 1359 (Kan. 1980). “The statute in question in this case is K.S.A. 1979 Supp. 38-805, which states: “(a) The record in the district court for proceedings pursuant to the Kansas juvenile code shall consist of the petition, process and the service thereof, orders and writs, and reports and…”
— K.S.A. § 38-805(h)(2) — 1 case
Nunn v. Morrison, 608 P.2d 1359 (Kan. 1980). “The statute in question in this case is K.S.A. 1979 Supp. 38-805, which states: “(a) The record in the district court for proceedings pursuant to the Kansas juvenile code shall consist of the petition, process and the service thereof, orders and writs, and reports and…”
— K.S.A. § 38-805(h)(4) — 1 case
In re the Interest of Hollingshead, 619 P.2d 1160 (Kan. 1980). “K.S.A. 1979 Supp. 38-805, in effect at all times herein, provides: “(a) The record in the district court for proceedings pursuant to the Kansas juvenile code shall consist of the petition, process and the service thereof, orders and writs, and reports and evaluations received or…”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.