intent-effects test (Kansas) · Go Syfert
← Kansas issues

intent-effects test in Kansas

5 Kansas opinions name it 1 courts 2016–2021 2 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.

Followed or applied (5)

CaseFollowedCited
Starkey v. Oklahoma Department of Correctionsgreen
okla · 2013 · cited in 2 Kansas opinions naming this issue, 2016–2016
2 sentences

2016“First, although the Oklahoma Supreme Court applied the intent-effects test, that court’s majority suggests they applied a lower standard as to when dre effects of a measure are punitive under the Oklahoma Ex Post Facto Clause by noting that the United States Constitution simply establishes a floor for constitutional rights in Oklahoma. 2013 OK 43, ¶ 45 (‘How we apply the “intent-effects” test is not governed by how the federal courts have independently applied the same test under dre United States Constitution as long as our interpretation is at least as protective as the federal interpretati

2016First, although the Oklahoma Supreme Court applied the intent-effects test, that courts majority suggests they applied a lower standard as to when the effects of a measure are punitive under the Oklahoma Ex Post Facto Clause by noting that the United States Constitution simply establishes a floor for constitutional rights in Oklahoma. 2013 OK 43, ¶ 45 (“How we apply the Intent-effects’ test is not governed by how the federal courts have independently applied the same test under the United States Constitution as long as our interpretation is at least as protective as the federal interpretation.

22
State v. Petersen-Beardgreen
kan · 2016 · cited in 1 Kansas opinions naming this issue, 2021–2021
1 sentence

2021See Petersen-Beard, 304 Kan. at 224 (Johnson, J., dissenting).

11
State v. Myersgreen
kan · 1996 · cited in 1 Kansas opinions naming this issue, 2016–2016
2 sentences

2016See Doe v. Thompson, 304 Kan. at 309-17, (citing State v. Myers, 260 Kan. 669 , 923 P.3d 1024 [1996] [lifetime postrelease registration under Kansas Sex Offender Registration Act was nonpunitive in nature], cert. denied 521 U.S. 1118 [1997]).

2016See Doe v. Thompson, 304 Kan. ___ , ___ P.3d ___ (No. 110,318, this day decided), slip op. at 22-31 (citing State v. Myers, 260 Kan. 669 , 923 P.3d 1024 [1996] [lifetime postrelease registration under Kansas Sex Offender Registration Act was nonpunitive in nature], cert. denied 521 U.S. 1118 [1997].

11
Doe v. Stategreen
alaska · 2008 · cited in 1 Kansas opinions naming this issue, 2016–2016
2 sentences

2016We therefore conclude that the statute violates Alaska’s ex post facto clause.” Doe v. State, 189 P.3d 999, 1019 (Alaska 2008).

2016We therefore conclude that the statute violates Alaska's ex post facto clause." Doe v. State, 189 P.3d 999, 1019 (Alaska 2008).

11
Tristar Corp. v. Freitasgreen
scotus · 1997 · cited in 1 Kansas opinions naming this issue, 2016–2016
2 sentences

2016See Doe v. Thompson, 304 Kan. at 309-17, (citing State v. Myers, 260 Kan. 669 , 923 P.3d 1024 [1996] [lifetime postrelease registration under Kansas Sex Offender Registration Act was nonpunitive in nature], cert. denied 521 U.S. 1118 [1997]).

2016See Doe v. Thompson, 304 Kan. ___ , ___ P.3d ___ (No. 110,318, this day decided), slip op. at 22-31 (citing State v. Myers, 260 Kan. 669 , 923 P.3d 1024 [1996] [lifetime postrelease registration under Kansas Sex Offender Registration Act was nonpunitive in nature], cert. denied 521 U.S. 1118 [1997].

11

Distinguished, questioned or overruled (0)

CaseNegativeCited
No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Kansas. Read the followed side critically anyway.

Also cited on this issue (1)

CaseCitedYears
Smith v. Doe green
scotus · 2003
2 sentences

2016But Smith described the intent-effects test as being in two parts, whereby the second step examines the “punitive .. . purpose or effect.” 538 U.S. at 92 .

2016But Smith described the intent-effects test as being in two parts, whereby the second step examines the "punitive . . . purpose or effect." 538 U.S. at 92 .

32016–2021

Statutes the citing opinions construe

KS § K.S.A. § 22-4901 (5) KS § K.S.A. § 20-2616 (3) KS § K.S.A. § 20-3018 (3) KS § K.S.A. § 22-4902 (3) KS § K.S.A. § 22-4905 (3) KS § K.S.A. § 22-4906 (3)

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.

Where else courts name it

WI 16 (2002–2022) IN 13 (2011–2026) OH 8 (1998–2015) MD 6 (2013–2020) KS 5 (2016–2021) NY 5 (2013–2023) NE 3 (2004–2026) CA 3 (2005–2020) ND 2 (1999–1999) PA 2 (2017–2017) OR 2 (2002–2018) TN 2 (2010–2011) IL 2 (1998–1998)

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.

← Caselaw search · G Cite Topics · Brief Check