State v. Mays

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• sidebar conferences and statement of defendant made trial court sufficiently aware of information to be elicited and reasons why information was important to defense
• proffer approved because it contained both the nature of the excluded evidence and its significance to the case
• no formal proffer made on each piece of excluded evidence being challenged; however, court through sidebar conferences and statement of defendant was aware of information to be elicited and reasons why information was important to defense
• no formal proffer made on each piece of excluded evidence being challenged; however, court through sidebar conferences and statement of defendant was aware of information to be elicited and reason why information was important to defense

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Cited by

11 cases in this archive cite this case.

• State v. Carr
  Supreme Court of Kansas· 2014-07-25· cited 125×
• State v. Roeder
  Supreme Court of Kansas· 2014-10-24· cited 108×
• State v. Evans
  Supreme Court of Kansas· 2003-01-24· cited 78×
• National Bank of Andover v. Kansas Bankers Surety Co.
  Supreme Court of Kansas· 2010-03-05· cited 76×
• State v. Alderson
  Supreme Court of Kansas· 1996-07-12· cited 65×
• State v. Patton
  Supreme Court of Kansas· 2005-09-30· cited 31×
• The Acquisition of Property by Eminent Domain, Unified School District No. 365 v. Diebolt
  Supreme Court of Kansas· 2014-03-21· cited 19×
• State v. Pennington
  Supreme Court of Kansas· 2006-04-28· cited 18×
• State v. Pepper
  Supreme Court of Kansas· 2023-12-08· cited 15×
• State v. Mixon
  Court of Appeals of Kansas· 2000-02-18· cited 12×
• State v. Houston
  Supreme Court of Kansas· 2009-07-17