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.
28 Kansas opinions name it 2 courts 2002–2026 9 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 |
|---|---|---|
In Re the Adoption of B.J.M.green2 sentences2011Rather than a fixed concept, due process is flexible and calls for such procedural protections as the particular situation demands. " (Emphasis added.) 42 Kan.App.2d at 82 , 209 P.3d 200 . 2011Rather than a fixed concept, due process is flexible and calls for such procedural protections as the particular situation demands. " (Emphasis added.) 42 Kan.App.2d at 82 , 209 P.3d 200 . | 2 | 4 |
Winston v. Kansas Dept. of SRSgreen2 sentences2019In Winston v. Kansas Dept. of SRS, 274 Kan. 396 , 49 P.3d 1274 (2002), our Supreme Court explained the standard for evaluating a procedural due process claim: "'The basic elements of procedural due process are notice and an opportunity to be heard at a meaningful time and in a meaningful manner. 2019In Winston v. Kansas Dept. of SRS, 274 Kan. 396 , 49 P.3d 1274 (2002), our Supreme Court explained the standard for evaluating a procedural due process claim: "'The basic elements of procedural due process are notice and an opportunity to be heard at a meaningful time and in a meaningful manner. | 1 | 9 |
In Re Interests A.A.-F.green2 sentences2025Ed. 2d 548 [1972] [stating "(f)or '(w)here a person's good name, reputation, honor, or integrity is at stake because of what the government is doing to him, notice and an opportunity to be heard are essential'"]); see also Allen, 314 Kan. 280 , Syl. ¶ 5; cf. In re A.A.-F., 310 Kan. 125 , 145-48, 444 P.3d 938 (2019) (analyzing a procedural due process claim based on the district court's finding that she received adequate notice of the hearing and did not appear). 8 In contrast, Unruh's appellate record lacks evidence to support his arguments that registration implicates a protected liberty or p 2024See In re A.A.-F., 310 Kan. 125 , 145-49, 444 P.3d 938 (2019); In re K.E., 294 Kan. 17, 21-26 , 272 P.3d 28 (2012); In re J.D.C., 284 Kan. at 166-70 . | 1 | 3 |
In Re Landrithgreen2 sentences2023See In re Landrith, 280 Kan. 619, 640 , 124 P.3d 467 (2005). 2023See In re Landrith, 280 Kan. 619, 640 , 124 P.3d 467 (2005). | 1 | 1 |
Merrifield v. COUNTY COM'RS FOR COUNTY OF SANTA FEgreen1 sentence2014Murphy v. Nelson, 260 Kan. 589, 598 , 921 P.2d 1225 (1996); Merrifield v. County Com'rs for County of Santa Fe, 654 F.3d 1073, 1078 (10th Cir. 2011). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Kansas. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Mathews v. Eldridge
green
2 sentences2026"Procedural due process imposes constraints on governmental decisions which deprive individuals of 'liberty' or 'property' interests within the meaning of the Due Process Clause of the Fifth or Fourteenth Amendment." Eldridge, 424 U.S. at 332 . 2020Ed. 2d 18 (1976), and lays out the procedural protection factors as: "(1) the private interest affected by the official action; (2) the risk of an erroneous deprivation of such interest; and (3) the fiscal and administrative burdens to the government." But Mathews properly lays out the factors of a procedural due process claim as: "First, the private interest that will be affected by the official action; second, the risk of an erroneous deprivation of such interest through the procedures used, and the probable value, if any, of additional or substitute procedural safeguards; and finally, the G | 2 | 2020–2026 |
In the Interest of J.D.C.
green
2 sentences2024If it is, then we must determine the nature and extent of the process due." 284 Kan. at 166 . "'[D]ue process, unlike some legal rules, is not a technical conception with a fixed content unrelated to time, place and circumstances. 2024The first step in considering a procedural due process claim is to decide whether a protected liberty or property interest is implicated. 284 Kan. at 166 . | 2 | 2024–2024 |
Murphy v. Nelson
green
2 sentences2014Murphy v. Nelson, 260 Kan. 589, 598 , 921 P.2d 1225 (1996); Merrifield v. County Com'rs for County of Santa Fe, 654 F.3d 1073, 1078 (10th Cir. 2011). 2002In reviewing a procedural due process claim the court must first determine whether a protected liberty or property interest is involved and, if it is, the court must then determine the nature and extent of the process which is due. [ Murphy, 260 Kan. at 598 .] A due process violation can be established only if the claimant is able to establish that he or she was denied a specific procedural protection to which he or she is entitled. | 2 | 2002–2014 |
Aria v. United States, on Its Own Behalf and for the Benefit of the Fort Mojave Indian Tribe
green
2 sentences2011Winston v. Kansas Dept. of SRS, 274 Kan. 396, 409 , 49 P.3d 1274 , cert. denied 537 U.S. 1088 (2002). 2009Winston v. Kansas Dept. of SRS, 274 Kan. 396, 409 , 49 P.3d 1274 , cert. denied 537 U.S. 1088 (2002). | 2 | 2009–2011 |
Albert E. Taylor v. James Wallace, David Miller, Dolores Ramsey
green
1 sentence2026Taylor, 931 F.2d at 702 . | 1 | 2026–2026 |
In Re Ke
green
1 sentence2024See In re A.A.-F., 310 Kan. 125 , 145-49, 444 P.3d 938 (2019); In re K.E., 294 Kan. 17, 21-26 , 272 P.3d 28 (2012); In re J.D.C., 284 Kan. at 166-70 . | 1 | 2024–2024 |
In the Interest of K.E.
green
1 sentence2024See In re A.A.-F., 310 Kan. 125 , 145-49, 444 P.3d 938 (2019); In re K.E., 294 Kan. 17, 21-26 , 272 P.3d 28 (2012); In re J.D.C., 284 Kan. at 166-70 . | 1 | 2024–2024 |
State v. Huerta
green
1 sentence2024The latter likely would present a claim we could not consider in this direct appeal under Huerta because Allen received a guidelines sentence that was the product of a plea agreement. 291 Kan. at 840 . | 1 | 2024–2024 |
State v. N.R.
green
1 sentence2024If so, the court then must determine the nature and extent of the process which is due." State v. N.R., 314 Kan. 98 , 113, 495 P.3d 16 (2021), cert. denied 142 S. Ct. 1678 (2022). | 1 | 2024–2024 |
Attallah v. New York College of Osteopathic Medicine
green
1 sentence2020Thus, even if, as Attallah alleges, state employees acted in concert with administrators at [Attallah's] private medical school to expel him, any ensuing deprivation of property or liberty does not give rise to a procedural due process claim under § 1983." 643 Fed. | 1 | 2020–2020 |
State v. Holt
green
2 sentences2019"Whether the trial court violated an individual's due process rights is a question of law, to which this court exercises unlimited review." State v. Holt , 285 Kan. 760 , 774, 175 P.3d 239 (2008). 2019"Whether the trial court violated an individual's due process rights is a question of law, to which this court exercises unlimited review." State v. Holt , 285 Kan. 760 , 774, 175 P.3d 239 (2008). | 1 | 2019–2019 |
State v. Davis
green
1 sentence2015See Ford, 302 Kan. 475 ; Davis, 281 Kan. 169 , Syl. ¶ 5. | 1 | 2015–2015 |
Village Villa v. Kansas Health Policy Authority
green
2 sentences2014Village Villa v. Kansas Health Policy Authority, 296 Kan. 315, 331 , 291 P.3d 1056 (2013). 2014Village Villa v. Kansas Health Policy Authority, 296 Kan. 315, 331 , 291 P.3d 1056 (2013). | 1 | 2014–2014 |
People v. Ary
green
2 sentences2006As the court stated in Ary, 118 Cal. App. 4th at 1028 : "While it is certainly the case that the trial court's error in failing to hold a competency hearing when one is warranted is not subject to harmless error review, this does not mean that the procedural due process violation can never be cured retrospectively, under appropriate circumstances, as the United States Supreme Court has suggested." In Drope, 420 U.S. at 183 , the Supreme Court stated that a retrospective competency hearing is permissible, though "inherent[ly] difficult." In Ary, 118 Cal. App. 4th at 1029-30 , the court remanded 2006As the court stated in Ary, 118 Cal. App. 4th at 1028 : "While it is certainly the case that the trial court's error in failing to hold a competency hearing when one is warranted is not subject to harmless error review, this does not mean that the procedural due process violation can never be cured retrospectively, under appropriate circumstances, as the United States Supreme Court has suggested." In Drope, 420 U.S. at 183 , the Supreme Court stated that a retrospective competency hearing is permissible, though "inherent[ly] difficult." In Ary, 118 Cal. App. 4th at 1029-30 , the court remanded | 1 | 2006–2006 |
Drope v. Missouri
green
2 sentences2006As the court stated in Ary, 118 Cal. App. 4th at 1028 : “While it is certainly the case that the trial court’s error in failing to hold a competency hearing when one is warranted is not subject to harmless error review, this does not mean that the procedural due process violation can never be cured retrospectively, under appropriate circumstances, as the United States Supreme Court has suggested.” In Drope, 420 U.S. at 183 , the Supreme Court stated that a retrospective competency hearing is permissible, though “inherent [ly] difficult.” In Ary, 118 Cal. App. 4th at 1029-30 , the court remande 2006As the court stated in Ary, 118 Cal. App. 4th at 1028 : "While it is certainly the case that the trial court's error in failing to hold a competency hearing when one is warranted is not subject to harmless error review, this does not mean that the procedural due process violation can never be cured retrospectively, under appropriate circumstances, as the United States Supreme Court has suggested." In Drope, 420 U.S. at 183 , the Supreme Court stated that a retrospective competency hearing is permissible, though "inherent[ly] difficult." In Ary, 118 Cal. App. 4th at 1029-30 , the court remanded | 1 | 2006–2006 |
Kennedy v. Board of Shawnee County Comm'rs
green
2 sentences2002Kennedy v. Board of Shawnee County Comm'rs, 264 Kan. 776, 797-98 , 958 P.2d 637 (1998). 2002Kennedy v. Board of Shawnee County Comm'rs, 264 Kan. 776, 797-98 , 958 P.2d 637 (1998). | 1 | 2002–2002 |
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.