Already have an account? Sign in instead.
You stay signed in for 30 days on this browser.
Continue with Google Continue with MicrosoftNo account yet? Create a free one.
We sent a six-digit code.
It expires in ten minutes, works once, and only in this browser. Five wrong tries void it. Send another code.
Your account is live and the Cloudflare checks are off for this browser.
5 Kansas opinions name it 2 courts 1998–2021 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 |
|---|---|---|
Bright v. Cargill, Inc.green2 sentences1998See Bright v. Cargill, Inc., 251 Kan. 387, 409 , 837 P.2d 348 (1992). 1998See Bright v. Cargill, Inc., 251 Kan. 387, 409 , 837 P.2d 348 (1992). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Kansas. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Cross v. Kansas Department of Revenue
green
2 sentences2021Cross v. Kansas Dept. of Revenue, 279 Kan. 501, 508 , 110 P.3d 438 (2005). 2021Cross v. Kansas Dept. of Revenue, 279 Kan. 501, 508 , 110 P.3d 438 (2005). | 1 | 2021–2021 |
State v. Smyser
green
2 sentences2016K.S.A. 2015 Supp. 22-3414(3); State v. Smyser, 297 Kan. 199, 204 , 299 P.3d 309 (2013). 2016K.S.A. 2015 Supp. 22-3414(3); State v. Smyser, 297 Kan. 199, 204 , 299 P.3d 309 (2013). | 1 | 2016–2016 |
State v. Thompson
green
2 sentences2006State v. Thompson, 221 Kan. 165, 172 , 558 P.2d 1079 (1976) (rejecting defendant’s claim that the sodomy statute was unconstitutional because the defendant, who was charged with forcible sodomy, did not have standing to argue that statute discriminated against consensual homosexual acts). 2006State v. Thompson, 221 Kan. 165, 172 , 558 P.2d 1079 (1976) (rejecting defendant’s claim that the sodomy statute was unconstitutional because the defendant, who was charged with forcible sodomy, did not have standing to argue that statute discriminated against consensual homosexual acts). | 1 | 2006–2006 |
State v. Henry
green
2 sentences1999State v. Henry, 263 Kan. 118, 131 , 947 P.2d 1020 (1997). 1999State v. Henry, 263 Kan. 118, 131 , 947 P.2d 1020 (1997). | 1 | 1999–1999 |
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.