History:
L. 1973, ch. 339, § 37; L. 1975, ch. 462, § 121; L. 1976, ch. 398, § 1; L. 1981, ch. 351, § 1; Repealed, L. 1996, ch. 136, § 1; April 11.
CASE ANNOTATIONS
1. Class action on behalf of inmates of jail challenging conditions of confinement proper; not rendered moot by transfers to other institutions. Beaver v. Chaffee, 2 Kan. App. 2d 364, 365, 370, 579 P.2d 1217.
2. Cited; authority of sentencing court and secretary of corrections concerning confinement (K.S.A. 21-4601, 21-4603) distinguished; procedures under K.S.A. 60-1501 et seq. examined. State ex rel. Stephan v. Clark, 243 Kan. 561, 565, 759 P.2d 119 (1988).
3. Termination of consent judgment regarding construction of new county jail and minimum standards for administrative operations examined. Beaver v. Kingman, 246 Kan. 145, 147, 785 P.2d 998 (1990).
Beaver v. Chaffee, 579 P.2d 1217 (Kan. Ct. App. 1978). · cites it 2דDefendants are the sheriff and commissioners of Shawnee county, who are directly charged by statute with operating and maintaining the jail, and the state secretary of corrections, who has certain jurisdiction over sanitary and safety conditions in all jails under K.S.A.…”
Beaver v. Kingman, 785 P.2d 998 (Kan. 1990). “The consent judgment required the Shawnee County Commissioners to construct a new county jail and to comply with the minimum standards for administrative operations set forth at K.S.A. 75-5228(a). A new policy and procedure manual and a population control plan were subsequently…”
State ex rel. Stephan v. Clark, 759 P.2d 119 (Kan. 1988). · cites it 2דIn support of the argument that a trial court may not impose an unconstitutional sentence, the defendants cite K.S.A. 75-5228, which provides in part: “75-5228.”
— K.S.A. § 75-5228(a) — 2 cases
Beaver v. Kingman, 785 P.2d 998 (Kan. 1990). “The consent judgment required the Shawnee County Commissioners to construct a new county jail and to comply with the minimum standards for administrative operations set forth at K.S.A. 75-5228(a). A new policy and procedure manual and a population control plan were subsequently…”
State ex rel. Stephan v. Clark, 759 P.2d 119 (Kan. 1988). “In support of the argument that a trial court may not impose an unconstitutional sentence, the defendants cite K.S.A. 75-5228, which provides in part: “75-5228.”
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.