State v. Coman (2012)
green
· 198 citation events
across 2 courts.
Showing the 28 strongest citers on record
(one row per citing case, strongest signal kept).
Treatment trajectory · 2012 → 2026 · click a year to view the case as of then
201220192026
Sort:
By significance ·
Most recent
yellow
Mundy v. State (2018)
But see State v. Coman, 294 Kan. 84, 90 , 273 P.3d 701 (2012) (a notice of appeal from a sentence cannot be construed to include an appeal from a conviction); State v. G.W.A., 258 Kan. 703, 707 , 906 P.2d 657 (1995) (declining to perform "independent research and read the record" in order to divine that the State was seeking to appeal a question reserved as opposed to an appeal from an acquittal).
a notice of appeal from a sentence cannot be construed to include an appeal from a conviction
green
State v. Pollman (2019)
State v. Coman , 294 Kan. 84 , Syl. ¶ 5, 273 P.3d 701 (2012) ("Under the rule of lenity, criminal statutes must be strictly construed in favor of the defendant."); State v. Thompson , 287 Kan. 238 , 249, 200 P.3d 22 (2009) (statutory silence or ambiguity construed in favor of defendant).
"Under the rule of lenity, criminal statutes must be strictly construed in favor of the defendant."
green
State v. Eckert (2023)
See State v. Coman, 294 Kan. 84, 97 , 273 P.3d 701 (2012) ("If . . . there are two reasonable and sensible interpretations of a criminal statute, the rule of lenity requires the court to interpret its meaning in favor of the accused.").
"If . . . there are two reasonable and sensible interpretations of a criminal statute, the rule of lenity requires the court to interpret its meaning in favor of the accused."
green
State v. Ruwart (2021)
See State v. Coman, 294 Kan. 84 , Syl. ¶ 5, 273 P.3d 701 (2012) ("Under the rule of lenity, criminal statutes must be strictly construed in favor of the defendant."); State v. Baker, 56 Kan.
"Under the rule of lenity, criminal statutes must be strictly construed in favor of the defendant."
green
State v. Baker (2018)
State v. Coman , 294 Kan. 84 , Syl. ¶ 5, 273 P.3d 701 (2012) ("Under the rule of lenity, criminal statutes must be strictly construed in favor of the defendant."); see State v. Barlow , 303 Kan. 804 , 813, 368 P.3d 331 (2016).
"Under the rule of lenity, criminal statutes must be strictly construed in favor of the defendant."
green
State v. Williams (2016)
See State v. Coman, 294 Kan. 84, 97 , 273 P.3d 701 (2012) (“If. . . there are two reasonable and sensible interpretations of a criminal statute, the rule of lenity requires the court to interpret its meaning in favor of the accused.”).
“If. . . there are two reasonable and sensible interpretations of a criminal statute, the rule of lenity requires the court to interpret its meaning in favor of the accused.”
green
In re Care & Treatment of Easterberg (2019)
See State v. Coman , 294 Kan. 84 , 93, 273 P.3d 701 (2012) (even crystal clear statutory language can be ambiguous if various statutes conflict).
even crystal clear statutory language can be ambiguous if various statutes conflict
green
State v. Walker (2014)
See, e.g., State v. Coman, 294 Kan. 84, 90 , 273 P.3d 701 (2012) . . . [citations omitted]." In other words, an appellate court will not rewrite a notice of appeal for the defendant.
green
State v. Myers (2021)
See State v. Coman, 294 Kan. 84, 93 , 273 P.3d 701 (2012) (When faced with statutory ambiguity, the canons of statutory construction must be applied and legislative history consulted for indications of legislative intent.). 12 B.
When faced with statutory ambiguity, the canons of statutory construction must be applied and legislative history consulted for indications of legislative intent.
green
State v. Samuels (2021)
See State v. Coman, 294 Kan. 84, 96-97 , 273 P.3d 701 (2012).
green
State v. Rinke (2021)
See State v. Coman, 294 Kan. 84, 95-96 , 273 P.3d 701 (2012) (collecting cases).
collecting cases
green
State v. Pederson (2020)
See State v. Coman, 294 Kan. 84, 96 , 273 P.3d 701 (2012); State v. Bannon, 55 Kan.
green
In re Estate of Moore (2019)
See State v. Coman, 294 Kan. 84, 93 , 273 P.3d 701 (2012) (ambiguity can arise because various statutes are in conflict requiring the application of canons of statutory construction and consultation of legislative history).
ambiguity can arise because various statutes are in conflict requiring the application of canons of statutory construction and consultation of legislative history
green
State v. Clapp (2018)
See State v. Coman , 294 Kan. 84 , 93, 273 P.3d 701 (2012) (appellate courts must consider various provisions of an act in pari materia with a view of reconciling and bringing the provisions into workable harmony).
appellate courts must consider various provisions of an act in pari materia with a view of reconciling and bringing the provisions into workable harmony
green
State v. Marinelli (2018)
See State v. Coman , 294 Kan. 84 , 91, 273 P.3d 701 (2012).
green
Patterson v. Cowley County, Kansas (2018)
Patterson , 53 Kan.App.2d at 483 , 388 P.3d 923 (referring to the statutory interpretation canon expressio uninus est exclusion alterius , i.e., the inclusion of one thing implies the exclusion of another); see, e.g., State v. Coman , 294 Kan. 84 , 93, 273 P.3d 701 (2012) (defining "sexually violent crime" to include two paragraphs of criminal sodomy statute means legislature intended to exclude a third paragraph); Cole v. Mayans , 276 Kan. 866 , 878, 80 P.3d 384 (2003) (exp…
defining "sexually violent crime" to include two paragraphs of criminal sodomy statute means legislature intended to exclude a third paragraph
green
State v. Kleypas (2016)
See State v. Coman, 294 Kan. 84, 93 , 273 P.3d 701 (2012) (appellate courts must consider various provisions of an act in pari materia with a view of reconciling and bringing the provisions into workable harmony if possible); State v. Frierson, 298 Kan. 1005, 1013 , 319 P.3d 515 (2014) (courts must construe statutes to avoid unreasonable or absurd results and presume the legislature does not intend to enact meaningless legislation).
appellate courts must consider various provisions of an act in pari materia with a view of reconciling and bringing the provisions into workable harmony if possible
green
Fuller v. State (2015)
See, e.g., State v. Coman, 294 Kan. 84, 90 , 273 P.3d 701 (2012) (notice of appeal for sentence cannot be construed to support appeal of conviction); State v. G.W.A., 258 Kan. 703, 707 , 906 P.2d 657 (1995) (State’s appeal from judgment of acquittal insufficient to confer jurisdiction over question reserved); Gates v. Goodyear, 37 Kan.
notice of appeal for sentence cannot be construed to support appeal of conviction
green
State v. Meyer (2015)
See State v. Coman, 294 Kan. 84, 90 , 273 P.3d 701 (2012).
green
State v. Reed (2014)
See State v. Coman, 294 Kan. 84, 90-91 , 273 P.3d 701 (2012) (holding that an offender convicted under the bestiality portion of the criminal sodomy statute does not have standing to challenge the constitutionality of die portion of the statute that criminalizes homosexual conduct); State v. Thompson, 221 Kan. 165, 172 , 558 P.2d 1079 (1976) (holding that unconstitutional government action can only be challenged by a person directly affected; it cannot be challenged by one i…
holding that an offender convicted under the bestiality portion of the criminal sodomy statute does not have standing to challenge the constitutionality of die portion of the statute that criminalizes homosexual conduct
green
State v. Laurel (2014)
See, e.g., State v. Coman, 294 Kan. 84, 90 , 273 P.3d 701 (2012) (notice of appeal for sentence cannot be con strued to support appeal of conviction); State v. G.W.A., 258 Kan. 703, 707 , 906 P.2d 657 (1995) (State’s appeal from judgment of acquittal insufficient to confer jurisdiction over question reserved); Gates v. Goodyear, 37 Kan.
notice of appeal for sentence cannot be con strued to support appeal of conviction
green
State v. Phillips (2014)
Pierce v. Board of County Commissioners, 200 Kan. 74, 80-81 , 434 P.2d 858 (1967); accord State v. Coman, 294 Kan. 84, 89 , 273 P.3d 701 (2012).
green
City of Lincoln Center v. Farmway Co-Op, Inc. (2013)
See State v. Marks, 297 Kan. 131, 145 , 298 P.3d 1102 (2013) (citing State v. Coman, 294 Kan. 84, 96 , 273 P.3d 701 [2012]) (“As a general rule, criminal [laws] must be strictly construed so that any reasonable doubt about the meaning is decided in favor of the accused.”).
green
State v. Diaz (2013)
See State v. Coman, 294 Kan. 84, 96 , 273 P.3d 701 (2012).
green
State v. Gallardo (2013)
See 294 Kan. at 92-93 .
green
Turner v. Steele (2012)
See, e.g., State v. Coman, 294 Kan. 84 , Syl. ¶ 3, 273 P.3d 701 (2012) (an appellant does not have standing to argue that a statute is unconstitutional as applied to third parties in hypothetical situations); State v. Thompson, 221 Kan. 165, 172 , 558 P.2d 1079 (1976) (stating rule drat unconstitutional governmental action can only be challenged by a person directly affected and such a challenge cannot be made by invoking tire rights of others).
an appellant does not have standing to argue that a statute is unconstitutional as applied to third parties in hypothetical situations
green
State v. Sharp (2017)
A strict construction of the statutory language an "exhibition of speed or acceleration" would necessarily "denote movement of some kind." 2014 WL 7566576 , at *6; see Coman, 294 Kan. at 96 .
green
State v. Llamas (2013)
See Coman, 294 Kan. at 97 (if “there are two reasonable and sensible interpretations of a criminal statute, the rule of lenity requires the court to interpret its meaning in favor of the accused”).
if “there are two reasonable and sensible interpretations of a criminal statute, the rule of lenity requires the court to interpret its meaning in favor of the accused”