State v. Carapezza
| Docket Number | 101958 |
| Decision Date | 09 March 2012 |
Get this document and AI-powered insights with a free trial of vLex and Vincent AI
Get Started for FreeStart Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial
6 cases
-
Creegan v. State
...to require compensation for the taking of privately held interests not protected under the Fifth Amendment. See State v. Carapezza, 293 Kan. 1071, 1077, 272 P.3d 10 (2012) (State may provide greater rights or protections than United States Constitution guarantees); Tapps Brewing, Inc. v. Ci......
-
State v. Boothby
...Which party bears the burden to prove harmlessness is a question of law also subject to unlimited review. See State v. Carapezza , 293 Kan. 1071, 1075, 272 P.3d 10 (2012) ("[A] determination of the applicable burden of proof is a question of law."). For decades, we have held: "The party all......
-
State v. Mitchell
...been foreclosed, involves issues of statutory and caselaw interpretation and is therefore a question of law. See State v. Carapezza, 293 Kan. 1071, 1075, 272 P.3d 10 (2012). This court exercises unlimited review over questions of law. State v. May, 293 Kan. 858, 862, 269 P.3d 1260 (2012).An......
-
State v. Cravens
...some extrinsic consideration such as bias, passion, or prejudice. [Citation omitted.]’ [Citations omitted.]” See State v. Carapezza, 293 Kan. 1071, 1080, 272 P.3d 10 (2012). Cravens makes no such showings here. Because Cravens has not established juror misconduct under the first step of the......
Get Started for Free