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.
31 Kansas opinions name it 2 courts 1992–2026 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.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
State v. Ortega-Cadelangreen2 sentences2026Britt, 295 Kan. at 1032; Woodard, 294 Kan. at 723 ; Ortega-Cadelan, 287 Kan. at 161 . 2013Like Herbel, Ortega-Cadelan asked that we apply one of the Fierce exceptions and consider his issue “to serve the ends of justice.” 287 Kan. at 159 . | 2 | 5 |
State v. Mossmangreen2 sentences2014See Mossman, 294 Kan. at 908 . 2013Accordingly, an appellate court applies a bifurcated standard of review: “All of the evidence is reviewed, but not reweighed, to determine if there is sufficient support for the district court’s factual findings, and the district court’s legal conclusions drawn from those facts are reviewed de novo.” Mossman, 294 Kan. at 906 . | 1 | 3 |
State v. Robinsongreen2 sentences2017See, e.g., State v. Robinson, 303 Kan. 11, 357 , 363 P.3d 875 (2015) (Johnson, J., dissenting). 2017See, e.g., State v. Robinson, 303 Kan. 11, 357 , 363 P.3d 875 (2015) (Johnson, J., dissenting). | 1 | 2 |
State v. Camerongreen1 sentence2015See Mossman, 294 Kan. at 921 . | 1 | 1 |
State Ex Rel. Six v. Kansas Lotterygreen2 sentences2012Six v. Kansas Lottery, 286 Kan. 557, 562 , 186 P.3d 183 (2008) (“It is not the duty of this court to criticize the legislature or to substitute its view on economic or social policy; it is the duty of this court to safeguard the constitution.”)- This court has set out a three-part test governing analysis of cruel or unusual punishment claims under § 9 of the Kansas Constitution Bill of Rights: “(1) The nature of the offense and the character of the offender should be examined with particular regard to the degree of danger present to society; relevant to this inquiry are the facts of the crime, 2012Six v. Kansas Lottery, 286 Kan. 557, 562 , 186 P.3d 183 (2008) (“It is not the duty of this court to criticize the legislature or to substitute its view on economic or social policy; it is the duty of this court to safeguard the constitution.”)- This court has set out a three-part test governing analysis of cruel or unusual punishment claims under § 9 of the Kansas Constitution Bill of Rights: “(1) The nature of the offense and the character of the offender should be examined with particular regard to the degree of danger present to society; relevant to this inquiry are the facts of the crime, | 1 | 1 |
Murphy v. Nelsongreen2 sentences2008See Murphy v. Nelson, 260 Kan. 589, 597 , 921 P.2d 1225 (1996). 2008See Murphy v. Nelson, 260 Kan. 589, 597 , 921 P.2d 1225 (1996). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Scherzergreen2 sentences2001See, e.g., State v. Scherzer, 254 Kan. at 939 (legislature’s decision to allow house arrest for one type of crime and not for another was not cruel and unusual punishment); State v. Kilpatrick, 201 Kan. 6, 18-19 , 439 P.2d 99 (1968) (hanging by the neck is not cruel and unusual punishment); State v. White, 44 Kan. 514, 515-17 , 25 Pac. 33 (1890) (imprisonment at hard labor not per se cruel or unusual under § 9). 2001See, e.g., State v. Scherzer, 254 Kan. at 939 (legislature's decision to allow house arrest for one type of crime and not for another was not cruel and unusual punishment); State v. Kilpatrick, 201 Kan. 6, 18-19 , 439 P.2d 99 (1968) (hanging by the neck is not cruel and unusual punishment); State v. White, 44 Kan. 514, 515-17 , 25 Pac. 33 (1890) (imprisonment at hard labor not per se cruel or unusual under § 9). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Kilpatrickgreen2 sentences2001See, e.g., State v. Scherzer, 254 Kan. at 939 (legislature’s decision to allow house arrest for one type of crime and not for another was not cruel and unusual punishment); State v. Kilpatrick, 201 Kan. 6, 18-19 , 439 P.2d 99 (1968) (hanging by the neck is not cruel and unusual punishment); State v. White, 44 Kan. 514, 515-17 , 25 Pac. 33 (1890) (imprisonment at hard labor not per se cruel or unusual under § 9). 2001See, e.g., State v. Scherzer, 254 Kan. at 939 (legislature’s decision to allow house arrest for one type of crime and not for another was not cruel and unusual punishment); State v. Kilpatrick, 201 Kan. 6, 18-19 , 439 P.2d 99 (1968) (hanging by the neck is not cruel and unusual punishment); State v. White, 44 Kan. 514, 515-17 , 25 Pac. 33 (1890) (imprisonment at hard labor not per se cruel or unusual under § 9). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Tylergreen2 sentences2001See, e.g., Tyler, 251 Kan. at 644-46 (lengthy consecutive sentences did not violate “cruel and unusual punishment prohibition found in § 9 of the Kansas Constitution Bill of Rights”); Kilpatrick, 201 Kan. at 18-19 (death by hanging did not violate § 9 or the Eighth Amendment because hanging is not cruel and unusual; no separate analysis of state and federal provisions). 2001See, e.g., Tyler, 251 Kan. at 644-46 (lengthy consecutive sentences did not violate "cruel and unusual punishment prohibition found in § 9 of the Kansas Constitution Bill of Rights"); Kilpatrick, 201 Kan. at 18-19 (death by hanging did not violate § 9 or the Eighth Amendment because hanging is not cruel and unusual; no separate analysis of state and federal provisions). | 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. Freeman
green
2 sentences2014This court employs a three-part test from State v. Freeman, 223 Kan. 362 , Syl. ¶ 2, 574 P.2d 950 (1978), to determine whether a sentence for lifetime postrelease supervision is a cruel or unusual punishment under § 9 of the Kansas Constitution Bill of Rights. 2014This court employs a three-part test from State v. Freeman, 223 Kan. 362 , Syl. ¶ 2, 574 P.2d 950 (1978), to determine whether a sentence for lifetime postrelease supervision is a cruel or unusual punishment under § 9 of the Kansas Constitution Bill of Rights. | 13 | 1992–2021 |
State v. Britt
green
2 sentences2013Standard of Review Because a district court malees both legal and factual conclusions in reviewing whether a sentence is cruel or unusual punishment under § 9 of the Kansas Constitution Bill of Rights, this court applies a bifurcated standard of review. “ ‘[Wjithout 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.’ ” State v. Britt, 295 Kan. 1018, 1031 , 287 P.3d 905 (2012) (quoting Woodard 2013Standard of Review Because a district court malees both legal and factual conclusions in reviewing whether a sentence is cruel or unusual punishment under § 9 of the Kansas Constitution Bill of Rights, this court applies a bifurcated standard of review. “ ‘[Wjithout 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.’ ” State v. Britt, 295 Kan. 1018, 1031 , 287 P.3d 905 (2012) (quoting Woodard | 3 | 2013–2013 |
State v. Woodard
green
2 sentences2026Britt, 295 Kan. at 1032; Woodard, 294 Kan. at 723 ; Ortega-Cadelan, 287 Kan. at 161 . 2013Standard of Review Because a district court malees both legal and factual conclusions in reviewing whether a sentence is cruel or unusual punishment under § 9 of the Kansas Constitution Bill of Rights, this court applies a bifurcated standard of review. “ ‘[Wjithout 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.’ ” State v. Britt, 295 Kan. 1018, 1031 , 287 P.3d 905 (2012) (quoting Woodard | 2 | 2013–2026 |
State v. Horn
green
2 sentences2010The sentence based on the attempted rape *573 conviction is vacated because it is contrary to our holding in State v. Horn, 288 Kan. 690 , 206 P.3d 526 (2009), which held that the rule of lenity requires imposing the lesser of two sentences that apply to an attempt to commit a sexually violent off-grid crime against a minor, such as rape — i.e., K.S.A. 21-3301(c) (“An attempt to commit an off-grid felony shall be ranked at nondrug severity level 1.”) and K.S.A. 21-4643(a)(l)(G) (hard 25 life imprisonment applies to “an attempt” to commit any of the sexually violent crimes enumerated in Jessica 2010The sentence based on the attempted rape *573 conviction is vacated because it is contrary to our holding in State v. Horn, 288 Kan. 690 , 206 P.3d 526 (2009), which held that the rule of lenity requires imposing the lesser of two sentences that apply to an attempt to commit a sexually violent off-grid crime against a minor, such as rape — i.e., K.S.A. 21-3301(c) (“An attempt to commit an off-grid felony shall be ranked at nondrug severity level 1.”) and K.S.A. 21-4643(a)(l)(G) (hard 25 life imprisonment applies to “an attempt” to commit any of the sexually violent crimes enumerated in Jessica | 2 | 2010–2010 |
State v. Raskie
green
1 sentence2021Ultimately, our Supreme Court held that the trial court failed to adequately consider the three-factor test for determining whether a sentence's length constitutes cruel and unusual punishment as outlined in State v. Freeman, 223 Kan. 362, 367 , 574 P.2d 950 (1978), when raised by Raskie's trial counsel at Raskie's sentencing. 293 Kan. at 925-26 . | 1 | 2021–2021 |
Graham v. Florida
green
2 sentences2015In a separate analysis, the panel rejected Funk’s proportionality challenge under tire Eighth Amendment, applying the test set out by the United States Supreme Court in Graham v. Florida, 560 U.S. 48 , 130 S. Ct. 2011 , 176 L. 2015In a separate analysis, the panel rejected Funk’s proportionality challenge under tire Eighth Amendment, applying the test set out by the United States Supreme Court in Graham v. Florida, 560 U.S. 48 , 130 S. Ct. 2011 , 176 L. | 1 | 2015–2015 |
State v. Gomez
green
2 sentences2013The Freeman Test Section 9 of the Kansas Constitution Bill of Rights prohibits “cruel or unusual punishment.” Punishment violates § 9 when “it is so disproportionate to the crime for which it is inflicted that it shocks the conscience and offends fundamental notions of human dignity.” State v. Gomez, 290 Kan. 858 , Syl. ¶ 9, 235 P.3d 1203 (2010). 2013The Freeman Test Section 9 of the Kansas Constitution Bill of Rights prohibits “cruel or unusual punishment.” Punishment violates § 9 when “it is so disproportionate to the crime for which it is inflicted that it shocks the conscience and offends fundamental notions of human dignity.” State v. Gomez, 290 Kan. 858 , Syl. ¶ 9, 235 P.3d 1203 (2010). | 1 | 2013–2013 |
State v. Thomas
green
2 sentences2009At oral argument, White withdrew this issue from consideration in light of this court’s decisions in State v. Thomas, 288 Kan. 157 , Syl. ¶ 1, 199 P.3d 1265 (2009), and State v. Ortega-Cadelan, 287 Kan. 157 , Syl. ¶ 1, 194 P.3d 1195 (2008). 2009At oral argument, White withdrew this issue from consideration in light of this court’s decisions in State v. Thomas, 288 Kan. 157 , Syl. ¶ 1, 199 P.3d 1265 (2009), and State v. Ortega-Cadelan, 287 Kan. 157 , Syl. ¶ 1, 194 P.3d 1195 (2008). | 1 | 2009–2009 |
State v. Schultz
green
2 sentences2008In Scott, involving a challenge to the public disclosure provisions of the Kansas Offender Registration Act as cruel or unusual punishment under § 9 of the Kansas Constitution Bill of Rights, the court stated: “Although we have the right to interpret our Kansas Constitution in a manner different than the United States Constitution has been construed, State v. Schultz, 252 Kan. 819, 824 , 850 P.2d 818 (1993), we have not traditionally done so. 2008In Scott, involving a challenge to the public disclosure provisions of the Kansas Offender Registration Act as cruel or unusual punishment under § 9 of the Kansas Constitution Bill of Rights, the court stated: “Although we have the right to interpret our Kansas Constitution in a manner different than the United States Constitution has been construed, State v. Schultz, 252 Kan. 819, 824 , 850 P.2d 818 (1993), we have not traditionally done so. | 1 | 2008–2008 |
State v. Scott
neutral
1 sentence2003State v. Scott, 24 Kan. | 1 | 2003–2003 |
State v. White
neutral
2 sentences2001See, e.g., State v. Scherzer, 254 Kan. at 939 (legislature’s decision to allow house arrest for one type of crime and not for another was not cruel and unusual punishment); State v. Kilpatrick, 201 Kan. 6, 18-19 , 439 P.2d 99 (1968) (hanging by the neck is not cruel and unusual punishment); State v. White, 44 Kan. 514, 515-17 , 25 Pac. 33 (1890) (imprisonment at hard labor not per se cruel or unusual under § 9). 2001See, e.g., State v. Scherzer, 254 Kan. at 939 (legislature's decision to allow house arrest for one type of crime and not for another was not cruel and unusual punishment); State v. Kilpatrick, 201 Kan. 6, 18-19 , 439 P.2d 99 (1968) (hanging by the neck is not cruel and unusual punishment); State v. White, 44 Kan. 514, 515-17 , 25 Pac. 33 (1890) (imprisonment at hard labor not per se cruel or unusual under § 9). | 1 | 2001–2001 |
State v. Scott
green
2 sentences2001In State v. Scott, 265 Kan. 1, 5 , 961 P.2d 667 (1998), we stated: “Although we have the right to interpret our Kansas Constitution in a manner different than the United States Constitution has been construed, [citation omitted], we have not traditionally done so. [Citation omitted.] The wording of both clauses at issue is nearly identical, and we will look to constructions of both provisions in reaching our conclusions herein.” Kleypas argues that despite this court’s historical treatment of the two provisions as interchangeable, the framers of the Kansas Constitution deliberately chose the p 2001In State v. Scott, 265 Kan. 1, 5 , 961 P.2d 667 (1998), we stated: “Although we have the right to interpret our Kansas Constitution in a manner different than the United States Constitution has been construed, [citation omitted], we have not traditionally done so. [Citation omitted.] The wording of both clauses at issue is nearly identical, and we will look to constructions of both provisions in reaching our conclusions herein.” Kleypas argues that despite this court’s historical treatment of the two provisions as interchangeable, the framers of the Kansas Constitution deliberately chose the p | 1 | 2001–2001 |
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.