5 Kansas opinions name it 2 courts 2004–2025 1 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Kansas courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
State v. Davisgreen2 sentences2007See State v. Davis, 271 Kan. 892, 894 , 26 P.3d 681 (2001); State v. Duke, 263 Kan. 193, 196 , 946 P.2d 1375 (1997). 2007See State v. Davis, 271 Kan. 892, 894 , 26 P.3d 681 (2001); State v. Duke, 263 Kan. 193, 196 , 946 P.2d 1375 (1997). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Kansas. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Shutts v. Phillips Petroleum Co.
green
2 sentences2025Today we clarify that section 10 of the Kansas Constitution Bill of Rights only involves the former two; it does not impact subject matter jurisdiction. "[V]enue is not a jurisdictional matter, but a procedural one." Shutts v. Phillips Petroleum Co., 222 Kan. 527, 546 , 567 P.2d 1292 (1977); 21 C.J.S. 2025Today we clarify that section 10 of the Kansas Constitution Bill of Rights only involves the former two; it does not impact subject matter jurisdiction. "[V]enue is not a jurisdictional matter, but a procedural one." Shutts v. Phillips Petroleum Co., 222 Kan. 527, 546 , 567 P.2d 1292 (1977); 21 C.J.S. | 1 | 2025–2025 |
Apprendi v. New Jersey
green
2 sentences2017Using the prospective-only application of Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466 , 120 S. Ct. 2348 , 147 L. 2017Using the prospective-only application of Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466 , 120 S. Ct. 2348 , 147 L. | 1 | 2017–2017 |
Verge v. State
green
1 sentence2017In denying Barnes' 60-1507 motion, the district court's minute sheet simply adopted the State's response, which had relied on the reasoning of the Kansas Court of Appeals panel in Verge v. State, 50 Kan. | 1 | 2017–2017 |
State v. Barnes
green
1 sentence2007We remanded for resentencing. 278 Kan. at 127-28 . | 1 | 2007–2007 |
State v. Duke
green
2 sentences2007See State v. Davis, 271 Kan. 892, 894 , 26 P.3d 681 (2001); State v. Duke, 263 Kan. 193, 196 , 946 P.2d 1375 (1997). 2007See State v. Davis, 271 Kan. 892, 894 , 26 P.3d 681 (2001); State v. Duke, 263 Kan. 193, 196 , 946 P.2d 1375 (1997). | 1 | 2007–2007 |
State v. Moncla
green
2 sentences2007The requirement of specificity stated in State v. Moncla, 269 Kan. 61, 65 , 4 P.3d 618 (2000), is to assure that there is a sufficient basis for appellate review. 2007The requirement of specificity stated in State v. Moncla, 269 Kan. 61, 65 , 4 P.3d 618 (2000), is to assure that there is a sufficient basis for appellate review. | 1 | 2007–2007 |
State v. Heywood
green
2 sentences2004Although it involved a different substantive issue, the procedural history recounted in another case, State v. Heywood, 245 Kan. 615 , 783 P.2d 890 (1989), is enlightening. 2004Although it involved a different substantive issue, the procedural history recounted in another case, State v. Heywood, 245 Kan. 615 , 783 P.2d 890 (1989), is enlightening. | 1 | 2004–2004 |
Counted by distinct opinions that both name this issue and are annotated to the section; sections every opinion cites regardless of issue are not filtered here, so read the counts against the total above.
Opinions by the citing court's state. A doctrine retained in one state and abandoned in another shows up here as a year span that stalls.