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.
237 Kansas opinions name it 2 courts 1992–2026 27 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 |
|---|---|---|
Gannon v. Stategreen2 sentences2022When a district court's decision is challenged for insufficiency of the evidence or as being contrary to the evidence, we apply a substantial competent evidence standard. "'Substantial evidence is such legal and relevant evidence as a reasonable person might accept as sufficient to support a conclusion.' [Citation omitted.]" Gannon v. State, 298 Kan. 1107, 1175 , 319 P.3d 1196 (2014). 2022When a district court's decision is challenged for insufficiency of the evidence or as being contrary to the evidence, we apply a substantial competent evidence standard. "'Substantial evidence is such legal and relevant evidence as a reasonable person might accept as sufficient to support a conclusion.' [Citation omitted.]" Gannon v. State, 298 Kan. 1107, 1175 , 319 P.3d 1196 (2014). | 3 | 7 |
PROGRESSIVE PRODUCTS, INC. v. Swartzgreen2 sentences2016Progressive Products, Inc. v. Swartz, 292 Kan. 947, 955 , 258 P.3d 969 (2011). 2. 2016Progressive Products, Inc. v. Swartz, 292 Kan. 947, 955 , 258 P.3d 969 (2011). 2. | 3 | 4 |
| State v. Shumwaygreen | 3 | 3 |
State v. Vandivergreen2 sentences2003In reviewing a trial court decision regarding the suppression of an accused’s statements, “we review the factual underpinnings of the decision by a substantial competent evidence standard of review and review the ultimate legal decision drawn from those facts de novo with independent judgment.” State v. Webber, 260 Kan. 263, 274-75 , 918 P.2d 609 (1996); see State v. Henry, 273 Kan. 608 , Syl. ¶ 2, 44 P.3d 466 (2002); State v. Baston, 261 Kan. 100, 104-05 , 928 P.2d 79 (1996); State v. Vandiver, 257 Kan. 53, 57-58 , 891 P.2d 350 (1995). 2003In reviewing a trial court decision regarding the suppression of an accused’s statements, “we review the factual underpinnings of the decision by a substantial competent evidence standard of review and review the ultimate legal decision drawn from those facts de novo with independent judgment.” State v. Webber, 260 Kan. 263, 274-75 , 918 P.2d 609 (1996); see State v. Henry, 273 Kan. 608 , Syl. ¶ 2, 44 P.3d 466 (2002); State v. Baston, 261 Kan. 100, 104-05 , 928 P.2d 79 (1996); State v. Vandiver, 257 Kan. 53, 57-58 , 891 P.2d 350 (1995). | 2 | 8 |
State v. Hughesgreen2 sentences2020See State v. Hughes, 286 Kan. 1010, 1029 , 191 P.3d 268 (2008) (When we review an asserted violation of a Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination, we review the district court's factual findings using a substantial competent evidence standard but review the ultimate legal conclusion "as a question of law using an unlimited standard of review."). 2020See State v. Hughes, 286 Kan. 1010, 1029 , 191 P.3d 268 (2008) (When we review an asserted violation of a Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination, we review the district court's factual findings using a substantial competent evidence standard but review the ultimate legal conclusion "as a question of law using an unlimited standard of review."). | 2 | 4 |
| State v. DeMarcogreen | 2 | 2 |
| State v. Smithgreen | 2 | 2 |
State v. Webbergreen2 sentences2003In reviewing a trial court decision regarding the suppression of an accused’s statements, “we review the factual underpinnings of the decision by a substantial competent evidence standard of review and review the ultimate legal decision drawn from those facts de novo with independent judgment.” State v. Webber, 260 Kan. 263, 274-75 , 918 P.2d 609 (1996); see State v. Henry, 273 Kan. 608 , Syl. ¶ 2, 44 P.3d 466 (2002); State v. Baston, 261 Kan. 100, 104-05 , 928 P.2d 79 (1996); State v. Vandiver, 257 Kan. 53, 57-58 , 891 P.2d 350 (1995). 2003In reviewing a trial court decision regarding the suppression of an accused’s statements, “we review the factual underpinnings of the decision by a substantial competent evidence standard of review and review the ultimate legal decision drawn from those facts de novo with independent judgment.” State v. Webber, 260 Kan. 263, 274-75 , 918 P.2d 609 (1996); see State v. Henry, 273 Kan. 608 , Syl. ¶ 2, 44 P.3d 466 (2002); State v. Baston, 261 Kan. 100, 104-05 , 928 P.2d 79 (1996); State v. Vandiver, 257 Kan. 53, 57-58 , 891 P.2d 350 (1995). | 1 | 10 |
State v. Beamangreen2 sentences2025But when the facts of the district court's determination to accept a jury trial waiver are not disputed, the question whether the defendant voluntarily and knowingly waived the jury trial right is a legal inquiry subject to unlimited appellate review." State v. Beaman, 295 Kan. 853, 858 , 286 P.3d 876 (2012). 2025But when the facts of the district court's determination to accept a jury trial waiver are not disputed, the question whether the defendant voluntarily and knowingly waived the jury trial right is a legal inquiry subject to unlimited appellate review." State v. Beaman, 295 Kan. 853, 858 , 286 P.3d 876 (2012). | 1 | 7 |
Schoen v. Kansas Department of Revenuegreen2 sentences2008Standard of Review Although generally an appellate court applies a substantial competent evidence standard of review when examining a district court's ruling in a driver's license suspension case, see Schoen v. Kansas Dept. of Revenue, 31 Kan.App.2d 820 , Syl. ¶ 1, 74 P.3d 588 (2003), the issues before us here require statutory and constitutional interpretation. 2008Standard of Review Although generally an appellate court applies a substantial competent evidence standard of review when examining a district court's ruling in a driver's license suspension case, see Schoen v. Kansas Dept. of Revenue, 31 Kan.App.2d 820 , Syl. ¶ 1, 74 P.3d 588 (2003), the issues before us here require statutory and constitutional interpretation. | 1 | 5 |
CMC Heartland Partners v. Union Pacific Railroadgreen2 sentences2002“In reviewing a trial court decision regarding the suppression of evidence, we review the factual underpinnings of the decision by a substantial competent evidence standard of review and review the ultimate legal decision drawn from those facts de novo with independent judgment.” State v. Webber, 260 Kan. 263 , Syl. ¶ 3, 918 P.2d 609 (1996), cert. denied 519 U.S. 1090 (1997). 2001Denial of motion to suppress While denial of a motion to suppress is to be reviewed on appeal by a substantial competent evidence standard, with the ultimate legal decision drawn from those facts to be decided de novo with independent judgment, State v. Webber, 260 Kan. 263, 274-75 , 918 P.2d 609 (1996), cert. denied 519 U.S. 1090 (1997), in the present case Zabrinas did not object to the statements when they were introduced at trial and in fact used them to buttress his defense much as was done in State v. Cellier, 263 Kan. 54 , 948 P.2d 616 (1997). | 1 | 5 |
State v. Johnsongreen2 sentences2022State v. Johnson, 304 Kan. 924, 950 , 376 P.3d 70 (2016). 2022State v. Johnson, 304 Kan. 924, 950 , 376 P.3d 70 (2016). | 1 | 4 |
Swank v. Kansas Department of Revenuegreen2 sentences2020See, e.g., Drake v. Kansas Dept. of Revenue, 272 Kan. 231, 233-34 , 32 P.3d 705 (2001) (approving substantial competent evidence standard used by appellate courts after noting that K.S.A. 77-623 requires decisions on petitions for review of agency actions to be reviewable as in other civil cases); Swank, 294 Kan. at 881 . 2020See Swank v. Kansas Dept. of Revenue, 294 Kan. 871, 881 , 281 P.3d 135 (2012). | 1 | 4 |
State v. Mooregreen2 sentences2014Consequently, in Reason we held that only if ‘ “ ‘the officer, by means of physical force or show of authority, has in some way restrained the liberty of a citizen may we conclude that a “seizure” has occurred.’ ” ’ 263 Kan. at 410-11 .” The standard of appellate review for this specific subset of suppression determinations—the trial court’s decision of whether the encounter is consensual or a seizure—is quite similar to the standard for general suppression of evidence: “Appellate review of the trial court’s determination of whether a reasonable person would feel free to refuse the officer’s r 2014Consequently, in Reason we held that only if ‘ “ ‘the officer, by means of physical force or show of authority, has in some way restrained the liberty of a citizen may we conclude that a “seizure” has occurred.’ ” ’ 263 Kan. at 410-11 .” The standard of appellate review for this specific subset of suppression determinations—the trial court’s decision of whether the encounter is consensual or a seizure—is quite similar to the standard for general suppression of evidence: “Appellate review of the trial court’s determination of whether a reasonable person would feel free to refuse the officer’s r | 1 | 4 |
Arizona v. Fulminantegreen2 sentences2003Ed. 2d 302 , 111 S. Ct. 1246 (1991); State v. Vandiver, 257 Kan. 53, 57-58 , 891 P.2d 350 (1995). “ ‘In reviewing a trial court decision regarding the suppression of evidence, we review the factual underpinnings of the decision by a substantial competent evidence standard of review and review the ultimate legal decision drawn from those facts de novo with independent judgment.’ [Citations omitted.]” ’ State v. Sanders, 272 Kan. 445, 452 , 33 P.3d 596 (2001), cert. denied 536 U.S. 963 (2002) (quoting State v. Baston, 261 Kan. 100, 104-05 , 928 P.2d 79 [1996]).” State v. Makthepharak, 276 Kan. 5 2003Ed. 2d 302 , 111 S. Ct. 1246 (1991); State v. Vandiver, 257 Kan. 53, 57-58 , 891 P.2d 350 (1995). ‘ “In reviewing a trial court decision regarding the suppression of evidence, we review the factual underpinnings of the decision by a substantial competent evidence standard of review and review the ultimate legal decision drawn from those facts de novo with independent judgment.” [Citations omitted.]’ ” State c. | 1 | 4 |
| State v. Walkergreen | 1 | 3 |
| State v. Alvidrezgreen | 1 | 3 |
| In re Brooksgreen | 1 | 2 |
| State v. Talkingtongreen | 1 | 2 |
| State v. Moralezred | 1 | 2 |
| Owen Lumber Co. v. Chartrandgreen | 1 | 2 |
| State Board of Nursing v. Ruebkegreen | 1 | 2 |
| State v. Hoppergreen | 1 | 2 |
| State v. Contrerasgreen | 1 | 1 |
| In re Marriage of Williamsgreen | 1 | 1 |
| In the Interest of B.D.-Y.green | 1 | 1 |
| In Re Bd-Y.green | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Kansas. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
State v. Ackward
green
2 sentences2007When analyzing a district court decision to deny suppression of a confession, we review “the factual underpinnings of the decision by a substantial competent evidence standard and the ultimate legal conclusion by a de novo standard.” We do not “reweigh evidence, pass on the credibility of witnesses, or resolve conflicts in the evidence.” State v. Ackward, 281 Kan. 2 , Syl. ¶ 1, 128 P.3d 382 (2006); State v. Swanigan, 279 Kan. 18 , Syl. ¶ 1, 106 P.3d 39 (2005). 2007When analyzing a district court decision to deny suppression of a confession, we review “the factual underpinnings of the decision by a substantial competent evidence standard and the ultimate legal conclusion by a de novo standard.” We do not “reweigh evidence, pass on the credibility of witnesses, or resolve conflicts in the evidence.” State v. Ackward, 281 Kan. 2 , Syl. ¶ 1, 128 P.3d 382 (2006); State v. Swanigan, 279 Kan. 18 , Syl. ¶ 1, 106 P.3d 39 (2005). | 17 | 2006–2010 |
State v. Thompson
green
2 sentences2025"Appellate review of a trial court's determination of whether a reasonable person would feel free to refuse the law enforcement officer's requests or otherwise terminate the encounter consists of two parts: (1) the factual underpinnings are reviewed under a substantial competent evidence standard and (2) the ultimate legal conclusion drawn from those facts, i.e., whether a reasonable person would feel free to refuse the requests or to terminate the encounter, is reviewed under a de novo standard." State v. Thompson, 284 Kan. 763 , Syl. ¶ 10, 166 P.3d 1015 (2007). 2025"Appellate review of a trial court's determination of whether a reasonable person would feel free to refuse the law enforcement officer's requests or otherwise terminate the encounter consists of two parts: (1) the factual underpinnings are reviewed under a substantial competent evidence standard and (2) the ultimate legal conclusion drawn from those facts, i.e., whether a reasonable person would feel free to refuse the requests or to terminate the encounter, is reviewed under a de novo standard." State v. Thompson, 284 Kan. 763 , Syl. ¶ 10, 166 P.3d 1015 (2007). | 8 | 2008–2025 |
State v. Swanigan
green
2 sentences2009Standard of Review When analyzing a trial court's denial of a motion to suppress a defendant's confession, an appellate court reviews "the factual underpinnings of the decision by a substantial competent evidence standard and the ultimate legal conclusion by a de novo standard." An appellate court does not "reweigh evidence, pass on the credibility of witnesses, or resolve conflicts in the evidence." State v. Harris, 284 Kan. 560 , Syl. ¶ 9, 162 P.3d 28 (2007); State v. Swanigan, 279 Kan. 18, 23 , 106 P.3d 39 (2005). 2009Standard of Review When analyzing a trial court's denial of a motion to suppress a defendant's confession, an appellate court reviews "the factual underpinnings of the decision by a substantial competent evidence standard and the ultimate legal conclusion by a de novo standard." An appellate court does not "reweigh evidence, pass on the credibility of witnesses, or resolve conflicts in the evidence." State v. Harris, 284 Kan. 560 , Syl. ¶ 9, 162 P.3d 28 (2007); State v. Swanigan, 279 Kan. 18, 23 , 106 P.3d 39 (2005). | 8 | 2006–2009 |
State v. Woodard
green
2 sentences2026This in turn requires an appellate court to employ a bifurcated standard of review: "'[W]ithout reweighing the evidence the appellate court reviews the factual underpinnings of the district court's findings under a substantial competent evidence standard, and the district court's ultimate legal conclusion drawn from those facts is reviewed de novo. [Citations omitted.]' State v. Woodard, 294 Kan. 717, 720 , 280 P.3d 203 (2012)." (Emphasis added.) State v. Spear, 297 Kan. 780, 800 , 304 P.3d 1246 (2013). 2026This in turn requires an appellate court to employ a bifurcated standard of review: "'[W]ithout reweighing the evidence the appellate court reviews the factual underpinnings of the district court's findings under a substantial competent evidence standard, and the district court's ultimate legal conclusion drawn from those facts is reviewed de novo. [Citations omitted.]' State v. Woodard, 294 Kan. 717, 720 , 280 P.3d 203 (2012)." (Emphasis added.) State v. Spear, 297 Kan. 780, 800 , 304 P.3d 1246 (2013). | 6 | 2013–2026 |
State v. Toothman
green
2 sentences2003Our standard of review is set forth in State v. Toothman, 267 Kan. 412, 416 , 985 P.2d 701 (1999): “An appellate court reviews the factual underpinnings of a district court’s decision ‘by a substantial competent evidence standard and the ultimate legal conclusion drawn from those facts by a de novo standard. 2003Our standard of review is set forth in State v. Toothman, 267 Kan. 412, 416 , 985 P.2d 701 (1999): “An appellate court reviews the factual underpinnings of a district court’s decision ‘by a substantial competent evidence standard and the ultimate legal conclusion drawn from those facts by a de novo standard. | 6 | 2000–2003 |
State v. Phinney
green
2 sentences2021The ultimate legal determination of whether those facts fit the exception should be reviewed under a de novo standard." State v. Phinney, 280 Kan. 394, 404 , 122 P.3d 356 (2005). 2021The ultimate legal determination of whether those facts fit the exception should be reviewed under a de novo standard." State v. Phinney, 280 Kan. 394, 404 , 122 P.3d 356 (2005). | 5 | 2007–2021 |
State v. Bell
green
2 sentences2021State v. Bell, 280 Kan. 358, 362 , 121 P.3d 972 (2005).'" State v. Delacruz, 307 Kan. 523 , 533, 411 P.3d 1207 (2018); State v. Carapezza, 286 Kan. 992, 1007 , 191 P.3d 256 (2008); State v. Hughes, 286 Kan. 1010, 1029 , 191 P.3d 268 (2008). 2021State v. Bell, 280 Kan. 358, 362 , 121 P.3d 972 (2005).'" State v. Delacruz, 307 Kan. 523 , 533, 411 P.3d 1207 (2018); State v. Carapezza, 286 Kan. 992, 1007 , 191 P.3d 256 (2008); State v. Hughes, 286 Kan. 1010, 1029 , 191 P.3d 268 (2008). | 5 | 2008–2021 |
State v. Goeller
green
2 sentences2018State v. Goeller , 276 Kan. 578 , Syl. ¶ 1, 77 P.3d 1272 (2003). 2018State v. Goeller , 276 Kan. 578 , Syl. ¶ 1, 77 P.3d 1272 (2003). | 5 | 2003–2018 |
State v. Butler
green
2 sentences2022State v. Butler, 307 Kan. 831, 852 , 416 P.3d 116 (2018). 19 When, as here, the district court conducted an evidentiary hearing on a defendant's motion for a new trial, appellate courts review the district court's underlying factual findings using a substantial competent evidence standard and review the legal conclusions based on those facts de novo. 2022State v. Butler, 307 Kan. 831, 852 , 416 P.3d 116 (2018). 19 When, as here, the district court conducted an evidentiary hearing on a defendant's motion for a new trial, appellate courts review the district court's underlying factual findings using a substantial competent evidence standard and review the legal conclusions based on those facts de novo. | 4 | 2020–2022 |
State v. Corbett
green
2 sentences2015State v. Cruz, 297 Kan. 1048, 1058-59 , 307 P.3d 199 (2013) (citing State v. Corbett, 281 Kan. 294, 304 , 130 P.3d 1179 [2006]). 2015State v. Cruz, 297 Kan. 1048, 1058-59 , 307 P.3d 199 (2013) (citing State v. Corbett, 281 Kan. 294, 304 , 130 P.3d 1179 [2006]). | 4 | 2010–2015 |
State v. Woolverton
green
2 sentences2013State v. Gant, 288 Kan. 76, 80 , 201 P.3d 673 (2009); State v. Woolverton, 284 Kan. 59, 70 , 159 P.3d 985 (2007). 2013State v. Gant, 288 Kan. 76, 80 , 201 P.3d 673 (2009); State v. Woolverton, 284 Kan. 59, 70 , 159 P.3d 985 (2007). | 4 | 2012–2013 |
State v. Gant
green
2 sentences2013State v. Gant, 288 Kan. 76, 80 , 201 P.3d 673 (2009); State v. Woolverton, 284 Kan. 59, 70 , 159 P.3d 985 (2007). 2013State v. Gant, 288 Kan. 76, 80 , 201 P.3d 673 (2009); State v. Woolverton, 284 Kan. 59, 70 , 159 P.3d 985 (2007). | 4 | 2012–2013 |
Wilcox v. United States
green
2 sentences2005We stated additional considerations specifically concerning confessions in State v. Sanders, 272 Kan. 445, 452 , 33 P.3d 596 (2001), cert. denied 536 U.S. 963 (2002): “In determining whether a confession is voluntary, a court is to look at the totality of the circumstances. 2003Ed. 2d 302 , 111 S. Ct. 1246 (1991); State v. Vandiver, 257 Kan. 53, 57-58 , 891 P.2d 350 (1995). “ ‘In reviewing a trial court decision regarding the suppression of evidence, we review the factual underpinnings of the decision by a substantial competent evidence standard of review and review the ultimate legal decision drawn from those facts de novo with independent judgment.’ [Citations omitted.]” ’ State v. Sanders, 272 Kan. 445, 452 , 33 P.3d 596 (2001), cert. denied 536 U.S. 963 (2002) (quoting State v. Baston, 261 Kan. 100, 104-05 , 928 P.2d 79 [1996]).” State v. Makthepharak, 276 Kan. 5 | 4 | 2003–2005 |
State v. Sanders
green
2 sentences2003Ed. 2d 302 , 111 S. Ct. 1246 (1991); State v. Vandiver, 257 Kan. 53, 57-58 , 891 P.2d 350 (1995). “ ‘In reviewing a trial court decision regarding the suppression of evidence, we review the factual underpinnings of the decision by a substantial competent evidence standard of review and review the ultimate legal decision drawn from those facts de novo with independent judgment.’ [Citations omitted.]” ’ State v. Sanders, 272 Kan. 445, 452 , 33 P.3d 596 (2001), cert. denied 536 U.S. 963 (2002) (quoting State v. Baston, 261 Kan. 100, 104-05 , 928 P.2d 79 [1996]).” State v. Makthepharak, 276 Kan. 5 2003Ed. 2d 302 , 111 S. Ct. 1246 (1991); State v. Vandiver, 257 Kan. 53, 57-58 , 891 P.2d 350 (1995). “ ‘In reviewing a trial court decision regarding the suppression of evidence, we review the factual underpinnings of the decision by a substantial competent evidence standard of review and review the ultimate legal decision drawn from those facts de novo with independent judgment.’ [Citations omitted.]” ’ State v. Sanders, 272 Kan. 445, 452 , 33 P.3d 596 (2001), cert. denied 536 U.S. 963 (2002) (quoting State v. Baston, 261 Kan. 100, 104-05 , 928 P.2d 79 [1996]).” State v. Makthepharak, 276 Kan. 5 | 4 | 2003–2005 |
Griffin v. Dale Willey Pontiac-Cadillac-GMC Truck, Inc.
green
2 sentences2003The substantial competent evidence test reviews the evidence in the light most favorable to the prevailing party.” Griffin v. Dale Willey Pontiac-Cadillac-GMC Truck, Inc., 268 Kan. 33, 34 , 991 P.2d 406 (1999). 2003The substantial competent evidence test reviews the evidence in the light most favorable to the prevailing party.” Griffin v. Dale Willey Pontiac-Cadillac-GMC Truck, Inc., 268 Kan. 33, 34 , 991 P.2d 406 (1999). | 4 | 2002–2004 |
State v. Baston
green
2 sentences2003In reviewing a trial court decision regarding the suppression of an accused’s statements, “we review the factual underpinnings of the decision by a substantial competent evidence standard of review and review the ultimate legal decision drawn from those facts de novo with independent judgment.” State v. Webber, 260 Kan. 263, 274-75 , 918 P.2d 609 (1996); see State v. Henry, 273 Kan. 608 , Syl. ¶ 2, 44 P.3d 466 (2002); State v. Baston, 261 Kan. 100, 104-05 , 928 P.2d 79 (1996); State v. Vandiver, 257 Kan. 53, 57-58 , 891 P.2d 350 (1995). 2003In reviewing a trial court decision regarding the suppression of an accused’s statements, “we review the factual underpinnings of the decision by a substantial competent evidence standard of review and review the ultimate legal decision drawn from those facts de novo with independent judgment.” State v. Webber, 260 Kan. 263, 274-75 , 918 P.2d 609 (1996); see State v. Henry, 273 Kan. 608 , Syl. ¶ 2, 44 P.3d 466 (2002); State v. Baston, 261 Kan. 100, 104-05 , 928 P.2d 79 (1996); State v. Vandiver, 257 Kan. 53, 57-58 , 891 P.2d 350 (1995). | 4 | 2001–2003 |
State v. Carapezza
green
2 sentences2020"When asked to review the violation of a defendant's Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination, this court reviews the district court's factual findings using a substantial competent evidence standard, but the ultimate legal conclusion is reviewed as a question of law using an unlimited standard of review." State v. Carapezza, 286 Kan. 992 , Syl. ¶ 11, 191 P.3d 256 (2008). 2020"When asked to review the violation of a defendant's Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination, this court reviews the district court's factual findings using a substantial competent evidence standard, but the ultimate legal conclusion is reviewed as a question of law using an unlimited standard of review." State v. Carapezza, 286 Kan. 992 , Syl. ¶ 11, 191 P.3d 256 (2008). | 3 | 2018–2021 |
State v. Gonzalez
green
2 sentences2017"In Kansas, a district court's factual findings are reviewed under the substantial competent evidence standard." State v. Gonzalez, 290 Kan. 747, 756 , 234 P.3d 1 (2010). 2017"In Kansas, a district court's factual findings are reviewed under the substantial competent evidence standard." State v. Gonzalez, 290 Kan. 747, 756 , 234 P.3d 1 (2010). | 3 | 2011–2019 |
| State v. Cruz green | 3 | 2014–2018 |
| State v. Britt green | 3 | 2013–2013 |
| State v. Harris green | 3 | 2007–2011 |
| Lincoln v. Kansas Department of Revenue green | 3 | 2001–2004 |
| State v. Harris green | 2 | 2015–2025 |
| State v. Harris green | 2 | 2020–2024 |
| State v. Harris green | 2 | 2022–2022 |
| State v. Mattox green | 2 | 2006–2021 |
| State v. Ernesti green | 2 | 2011–2021 |
| State v. Guein green | 2 | 2021–2021 |
| State v. Rizo green | 2 | 2017–2018 |
| Martin v. Kansas Department of Revenue green | 2 | 2011–2017 |
| State v. Coleman green | 2 | 2012–2014 |
| State v. Gomez green | 2 | 2013–2013 |
| State v. Dexter green | 2 | 2006–2011 |
| Florida v. Royer green | 2 | 2010–2011 |
| Casco v. Armour Swift-Eckrich green | 2 | 2009–2009 |
| State v. Washington green | 2 | 2003–2008 |
| State v. Makthepharak green | 2 | 2003–2005 |
| Zurawski v. Kansas Department of Revenue green | 2 | 1993–2004 |
| State v. Spear green | 1 | 2026–2026 |
| State v. Humphrey neutral | 1 | 2026–2026 |
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.