5 Kansas opinions name it 2 courts 1998–2026 3 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 |
|---|---|---|
| No positive-treatment citations attached to this issue in Kansas. | ||
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Kansas. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
State v. Dunn
green
2 sentences2026Dunn, 304 Kan. at 815-16 . 2025State v. Dunn, 304 Kan. 773, 815-16 , 375 P.3d 332 (2016). | 2 | 2025–2026 |
State v. Albano
green
1 sentence2022While this appeal was pending, the Kansas Supreme Court definitively rejected this state constitutional claim: 31 "Section 5 of the Kansas Constitution Bill of Rights does not guarantee defendants the right to have a jury determine the existence of sentence-enhancing prior convictions under the revised Kansas Sentencing Guidelines Act (KSGA), K.S.A. 2020 Supp. 21-6801 et seq.; no authority substantiates that defendants had such a jury trial right at common law when our state Constitution was adopted." State v. Albano, 313 Kan. 638 , Syl. ¶ 4, 487 P.3d 750 (2021). | 1 | 2022–2022 |
Farley v. Engelken
green
2 sentences2005Sections 1 and 2 of the Kansas Constitution Bill of Rights “are given much the same effect as the clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment relating to due process and equal protection of the law.” Farley v. Engelken, 241 Kan. 663, 667 , 740 P.2d 1058 (1987). 2005Sections 1 and 2 of the Kansas Constitution Bill of Rights “are given much the same effect as the clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment relating to due process and equal protection of the law.” Farley v. Engelken, 241 Kan. 663, 667 , 740 P.2d 1058 (1987). | 1 | 2005–2005 |
In re the Appeal of Boeing Co.
green
2 sentences1998“Interpretation of a statute is a question of law, and our review is unlimited.” In re Tax Appeal of Boeing Co., 261 Kan. 508 , Syl. ¶ 1, 930 P.2d 1366 (1997). 1998“Interpretation of a statute is a question of law, and our review is unlimited.” In re Tax Appeal of Boeing Co., 261 Kan. 508 , Syl. ¶ 1, 930 P.2d 1366 (1997). | 1 | 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.