26 Kansas opinions name it 2 courts 1918–2026 5 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 |
|---|---|---|
City of Wichita v. Tilsongreen2 sentences2021See City of Wichita v. Tilson, 253 Kan. 285, 288-91 , 855 P.2d 911 (1993) (discussing contours of necessity defense and indicating Kansas has not considered or recognized such a defense); see also State v. Roeder, 300 Kan. 901, 919 , 336 P.3d 831 (2014) (Upon rejecting necessity as a possible defense on the facts of that criminal prosecution, the court states: "As in Tilson, we decline to definitively state whether the necessity defense has any life in this state under other circumstances."). 2021See City of Wichita v. Tilson, 253 Kan. 285, 288-91 , 855 P.2d 911 (1993) (discussing contours of necessity defense and indicating Kansas has not considered or recognized such a defense); see also State v. Roeder, 300 Kan. 901, 919 , 336 P.3d 831 (2014) (Upon rejecting necessity as a possible defense on the facts of that criminal prosecution, the court states: "As in Tilson, we decline to definitively state whether the necessity defense has any life in this state under other circumstances."). | 2 | 4 |
State v. Roedergreen2 sentences2021See City of Wichita v. Tilson, 253 Kan. 285, 288-91 , 855 P.2d 911 (1993) (discussing contours of necessity defense and indicating Kansas has not considered or recognized such a defense); see also State v. Roeder, 300 Kan. 901, 919 , 336 P.3d 831 (2014) (Upon rejecting necessity as a possible defense on the facts of that criminal prosecution, the court states: "As in Tilson, we decline to definitively state whether the necessity defense has any life in this state under other circumstances."). 2021See City of Wichita v. Tilson, 253 Kan. 285, 288-91 , 855 P.2d 911 (1993) (discussing contours of necessity defense and indicating Kansas has not considered or recognized such a defense); see also State v. Roeder, 300 Kan. 901, 919 , 336 P.3d 831 (2014) (Upon rejecting necessity as a possible defense on the facts of that criminal prosecution, the court states: "As in Tilson, we decline to definitively state whether the necessity defense has any life in this state under other circumstances."). | 1 | 3 |
United States v. Sewardgreen1 sentence2024It can be asserted only by a defendant who was confronted with . . . a crisis which did not permit a selection from among several solutions, some of which did not involve criminal acts." United States v. Seward, 687 F.2d 1270, 1276 (10th Cir. 1982). 25 Vandevelde had other choices that day which did not require him to trespass into the Whites' shed and sleep there. | 1 | 1 |
State v. Gillgreen1 sentence2024See Gill, 48 Kan. | 1 | 1 |
United States v. Maynardgreen2 sentences2015United States v. Yeje-Cabrera, 430 F.3d 1, 9 (1st Cir. 2005); see United States v. Maynard, 615 F.3d 544, 550 (D.C. 2015United States v. Yeje-Cabrera, 430 F.3d 1, 9 (1st Cir. 2005); see United States v. Maynard, 615 F.3d 544, 550 (D.C. | 1 | 1 |
United States v. Yeje-Cabreragreen2 sentences2015United States v. Yeje-Cabrera, 430 F.3d 1, 9 (1st Cir. 2005); see United States v. Maynard, 615 F.3d 544, 550 (D.C. 2015United States v. Yeje-Cabrera, 430 F.3d 1, 9 (1st Cir. 2005); see United States v. Maynard, 615 F.3d 544, 550 (D.C. | 1 | 1 |
United States v. Oliyinka Sobamowogreen2 sentences2015See United States v. Sobamowo, 892 F.2d 90, 93 (D.C. 2015See United States v. Sobamowo, 892 F.2d 90, 93 (D.C. | 1 | 1 |
United States v. Melendez-Santiagogreen1 sentence2015The statute "does not impose upon the government an exhaustion requirement but rather requires the government to establish that it first made a 'reasonable good faith effort' to utilize other available normal and less intrusive investigative techniques before resorting to a wiretap. [Citation omitted.]" United States v. Melendez- Santiago, 447 F. Supp. 2d 144, 149 (D.P.R. 2006), aff'd 644 F.3d 54 (1st Cir. 2011). | 1 | 1 |
Hill v. Stategreen2 sentences2014The rationale utilized by “[tjhe majority of courts. . . [was] that because abortion is a lawful, constitutionally protected act, it is not a legally recognized harm *916 which can justify illegal conduct.” 253 Kan. at 293 ; see also Hill v. State, 688 So. 2d 901, 906 (Fla. 1996) (rejecting the necessity defense to charges of first-degree murder for killing an abortion clinic physician and a volunteer and stating that harm component of its inquiiy cannot be met by legal abortions as a matter of law), cert. denied 522 U.S. 907 (1997). 2014The rationale utilized by “[tjhe majority of courts. . . [was] that because abortion is a lawful, constitutionally protected act, it is not a legally recognized harm *916 which can justify illegal conduct.” 253 Kan. at 293 ; see also Hill v. State, 688 So. 2d 901, 906 (Fla. 1996) (rejecting the necessity defense to charges of first-degree murder for killing an abortion clinic physician and a volunteer and stating that harm component of its inquiiy cannot be met by legal abortions as a matter of law), cert. denied 522 U.S. 907 (1997). | 1 | 1 |
United States v. Merrie Warren Turner, AKA Merrie Foutzgreen1 sentence2014En route to its decision, the Holick panel noted that the district court had utilized the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals’ formulation of the necessity defense, which requires a defendant to show “(1) that the defendant was faced with a choice of evils and chose the lesser evil, (2) the defendant acted to prevent imminent harm, (3) the defendant reasonably anticipated a direct causal relationship between his conduct and the harm to be averted, and (4) the defendant had no legal alternatives to violating the law.” Holick, 2007 WL 518988, at *3 (citing United States v. Turner, 44 F.3d 900, 902 [1 | 1 | 1 |
City of Wichita v. Holickgreen2 sentences2014In that case, the defendant was convicted of trespass in violation of the Wichita City Code for protesting at Dr. Tiller s clinic despite tire defendant’s assertion of the necessity defense based upon his allegations that the clinic was performing illegal abortions “on minors, coerced women, and women with viable late-term pregnancies.” 2007 WL 518988, at *3 . *917 The Holick panel held that, to invoke the necessity defense, Hol-ick had to show an imminent harm or evil which he sought to prevent by his actions and that “ ‘under Kansas law the harm must be something more than tire performance o 2014In that case, the defendant was convicted of trespass in violation of the Wichita City Code for protesting at Dr. Tiller s clinic despite tire defendant’s assertion of the necessity defense based upon his allegations that the clinic was performing illegal abortions “on minors, coerced women, and women with viable late-term pregnancies.” 2007 WL 518988, at *3 . *917 The Holick panel held that, to invoke the necessity defense, Hol-ick had to show an imminent harm or evil which he sought to prevent by his actions and that “ ‘under Kansas law the harm must be something more than tire performance o | 1 | 1 |
Washington v. Hallgreen2 sentences2014The rationale utilized by “[tjhe majority of courts. . . [was] that because abortion is a lawful, constitutionally protected act, it is not a legally recognized harm *916 which can justify illegal conduct.” 253 Kan. at 293 ; see also Hill v. State, 688 So. 2d 901, 906 (Fla. 1996) (rejecting the necessity defense to charges of first-degree murder for killing an abortion clinic physician and a volunteer and stating that harm component of its inquiiy cannot be met by legal abortions as a matter of law), cert. denied 522 U.S. 907 (1997). 2014The rationale utilized by “[tjhe majority of courts. . . [was] that because abortion is a lawful, constitutionally protected act, it is not a legally recognized harm *916 which can justify illegal conduct.” 253 Kan. at 293 ; see also Hill v. State, 688 So. 2d 901, 906 (Fla. 1996) (rejecting the necessity defense to charges of first-degree murder for killing an abortion clinic physician and a volunteer and stating that harm component of its inquiiy cannot be met by legal abortions as a matter of law), cert. denied 522 U.S. 907 (1997). | 1 | 1 |
| State v. Wittegreen | 1 | 1 |
| Allison v. City of Birminghamgreen | 1 | 1 |
| State v. Ossweilergreen | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Kansas. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Van Dusen v. State
green
2 sentences2011The necessity for an inquiry under such circumstances addresses itself to the discretion of the court and its decision will not be disturbed in the absence of abuse of sound judicial discretion.’ ” Harkness, 252 Kan. at 516 -17 (quoting Van Dusen v. State, 197 Kan. 718 , Syl. ¶ 6, 421 P.2d 197 [1966]). 2011The necessity for an inquiry under such circumstances addresses itself to the discretion of the court and its decision will not be disturbed in the absence of abuse of sound judicial discretion.’ ” Harkness, 252 Kan. at 516 -17 (quoting Van Dusen v. State, 197 Kan. 718 , Syl. ¶ 6, 421 P.2d 197 [1966]). | 5 | 1972–2011 |
State v. Collins
neutral
2 sentences1966In State v. Collins, 162 Kan. 34 , 174 P. 2d 126 , the court, with respect to the application of the foregoing statute, held: “The manner in which the necessity for an inquiry concerning a defendant’s insanity is raised is not of much importance. 1966In State v. Collins, 162 Kan. 34 , 174 P. 2d 126 , the court, with respect to the application of the foregoing statute, held: “The manner in which the necessity for an inquiry concerning a defendant’s insanity is raised is not of much importance. | 3 | 1953–1967 |
State v. Harkness
green
2 sentences2011The necessity for an inquiry under such circumstances addresses itself to the discretion of the court and its decision will not be disturbed in the absence of abuse of sound judicial discretion.’ ” Harkness, 252 Kan. at 516 -17 (quoting Van Dusen v. State, 197 Kan. 718 , Syl. ¶ 6, 421 P.2d 197 [1966]). 2010The necessity for an inquiry under such circumstances addresses itself to the discretion of the court and its decision will not be disturbed in the absence of abuse of sound judicial discretion.’ ” Harkness, 252 Kan. at 516 -17 (quoting Van Dusen v. State, 197 Kan. 718 , Syl. ¶ 6, 421 P.2d 197 [1966]). | 2 | 2010–2011 |
Brewer v. Hudspeth
neutral
2 sentences1967Ed. 2d 65 , 82 S. Ct. 80 ; State v. Severns, supra; Brewer v. Hudspeth, 166 Kan. 263 , 200 P. 2d 312 ; and State v. Collins, 162 Kan. 34 , 174 P. 2d 126 . 1967Ed. 2d 65 , 82 S. Ct. 80 ; State v. Severns, supra; Brewer v. Hudspeth, 166 Kan. 263 , 200 P. 2d 312 ; and State v. Collins, 162 Kan. 34 , 174 P. 2d 126 . | 2 | 1966–1967 |
State v. Evans
green
1 sentence2026Two of our decisions, State v. Seacat, 303 Kan. 622 , 366 P.3d 208 (2016), and State v. Evans, 313 Kan. 972 , 492 P.3d 418 (2021), illustrate this point. 10 In Seacat, we held that a murder victim's statements to coworkers that her husband had threatened to kill her were admissible under the necessity exception. 303 Kan. at 638 . | 1 | 2026–2026 |
State v. Seacat
green
2 sentences2026Two of our decisions, State v. Seacat, 303 Kan. 622 , 366 P.3d 208 (2016), and State v. Evans, 313 Kan. 972 , 492 P.3d 418 (2021), illustrate this point. 10 In Seacat, we held that a murder victim's statements to coworkers that her husband had threatened to kill her were admissible under the necessity exception. 303 Kan. at 638 . 2026Two of our decisions, State v. Seacat, 303 Kan. 622 , 366 P.3d 208 (2016), and State v. Evans, 313 Kan. 972 , 492 P.3d 418 (2021), illustrate this point. 10 In Seacat, we held that a murder victim's statements to coworkers that her husband had threatened to kill her were admissible under the necessity exception. 303 Kan. at 638 . | 1 | 2026–2026 |
State v. Dukes
green
2 sentences2026See K.S.A. 60-404; State v. Dukes, 290 Kan. 485, 488 , 231 P.3d 558 (2010) (party must contemporaneously object to admission of evidence at trial to preserve evidentiary challenges for review). 2026See K.S.A. 60-404; State v. Dukes, 290 Kan. 485, 488 , 231 P.3d 558 (2010) (party must contemporaneously object to admission of evidence at trial to preserve evidentiary challenges for review). | 1 | 2026–2026 |
State v. Keyes
green
1 sentence2024Although a defendant is entitled to an instruction on every affirmative defense, "the defendant must also show that this affirmative defense was supported by competent evidence—i.e., that it was factually appropriate." State v. Keyes, 312 Kan. 103 , 107-08, 472 P.3d 78 (2020). | 1 | 2024–2024 |
State v. Adams
neutral
2 sentences2024State v. Berry, 223 Kan. 566, 568 , 575 P.2d 543 (1978) (a statement made by the hospitalized victim eight days after the fatal shooting was admissible in a murder trial under the necessity exception); State v. Adams, 223 Kan. 254, 255-56 , 573 P.2d 604 (1977) (statements made the morning after a robbery and three days after the robbery were sufficiently recent to meet the necessity exception). 2024State v. Berry, 223 Kan. 566, 568 , 575 P.2d 543 (1978) (a statement made by the hospitalized victim eight days after the fatal shooting was admissible in a murder trial under the necessity exception); State v. Adams, 223 Kan. 254, 255-56 , 573 P.2d 604 (1977) (statements made the morning after a robbery and three days after the robbery were sufficiently recent to meet the necessity exception). | 1 | 2024–2024 |
State v. Thomas
green
2 sentences2024North Carolina has recognized the necessity defense is appropriate to "'protect life or limb or health in a reasonable manner and with no other acceptable choice.'" State v. Thomas, 103 N.C. 2024App. 264, 265 , 405 S.E.2d 214 (1991). | 1 | 2024–2024 |
State v. Berry
neutral
2 sentences2024State v. Berry, 223 Kan. 566, 568 , 575 P.2d 543 (1978) (a statement made by the hospitalized victim eight days after the fatal shooting was admissible in a murder trial under the necessity exception); State v. Adams, 223 Kan. 254, 255-56 , 573 P.2d 604 (1977) (statements made the morning after a robbery and three days after the robbery were sufficiently recent to meet the necessity exception). 2024State v. Berry, 223 Kan. 566, 568 , 575 P.2d 543 (1978) (a statement made by the hospitalized victim eight days after the fatal shooting was admissible in a murder trial under the necessity exception); State v. Adams, 223 Kan. 254, 255-56 , 573 P.2d 604 (1977) (statements made the morning after a robbery and three days after the robbery were sufficiently recent to meet the necessity exception). | 1 | 2024–2024 |
People v. Cater
green
1 sentence2024Hunt, 2012 WL 3966535 , at *4. 28 While the law in Kansas on this issue is not well-developed, other jurisdictions have explained "[t]he major distinction between the defenses of compulsion and necessity is that in the former the source of the coercive power is from a human being and in the latter the coercive power has traditionally arisen from the forces of nature." People v. Cater, 78 Ill. | 1 | 2024–2024 |
United States v. Melendez-Santiago
green
1 sentence2015The statute "does not impose upon the government an exhaustion requirement but rather requires the government to establish that it first made a 'reasonable good faith effort' to utilize other available normal and less intrusive investigative techniques before resorting to a wiretap. [Citation omitted.]" United States v. Melendez- Santiago, 447 F. Supp. 2d 144, 149 (D.P.R. 2006), aff'd 644 F.3d 54 (1st Cir. 2011). | 1 | 2015–2015 |
State v. Bruce
green
2 sentences2015Bruce, 295 Kan. at 1038-39 . 2015Bruce, 295 Kan. at 1038-39 . | 1 | 2015–2015 |
United States v. Kahn
green
2 sentences2015The purpose of the necessity requirement is “to assure that wiretapping is not resorted to in situations where traditional investigative techniques would suffice to expose the crime,” United States v. Kahn, 415 U.S. 143 , 153 n.12, 94 S. Ct. 977 , 39 L. 2015The purpose of the necessity requirement is “to assure that wiretapping is not resorted to in situations where traditional investigative techniques would suffice to expose the crime,” United States v. Kahn, 415 U.S. 143 , 153 n.12, 94 S. Ct. 977 , 39 L. | 1 | 2015–2015 |
United States v. Giordano
green
2 sentences2015Ed. 2d 225 (1974), and to prevent law enforcement from employing wiretaps as “the initial step in criminal investigation.” United States v. Giordano, 416 U.S. 505, 515 , 94 S. Ct. 1820 , 40 L. 2015Ed. 2d 225 (1974), and to prevent law enforcement from employing wiretaps as “the initial step in criminal investigation.” United States v. Giordano, 416 U.S. 505, 515 , 94 S. Ct. 1820 , 40 L. | 1 | 2015–2015 |
United States v. Rodney Blackmon, AKA Seal A
green
2 sentences2015General allegations and boilerplate language fail to satisfy the necessity requirement. 273 F.3d at 1210 . 2015General allegations and boilerplate language fail to satisfy the necessity requirement. 273 F.3d at 1210 . | 1 | 2015–2015 |
General Motors Corp. v. Tracy
green
2 sentences2005Ed. 2d 761 , 117 S. Ct. 811 (1997), the Supreme Court recognized the necessity of such an analysis in the context of allegedly competing entities providing different products. 2005Ed. 2d 761 , 117 S. Ct. 811 (1997), the Supreme Court recognized the necessity of such an analysis in the context of allegedly competing entities providing different products. | 1 | 2005–2005 |
| People v. White green | 1 | 1995–1995 |
| Buckley v. City of Falls Church green | 1 | 1993–1993 |
| Commonwealth v. Brugmann green | 1 | 1993–1993 |
| State v. Taylor green | 1 | 1993–1993 |
| People v. Archer green | 1 | 1993–1993 |
| Commonwealth v. Wall green | 1 | 1993–1993 |
| State v. Sahr green | 1 | 1993–1993 |
| State v. Greene green | 1 | 1993–1993 |
| Crabb v. State green | 1 | 1993–1993 |
| State v. O'BRIEN green | 1 | 1993–1993 |
| Commonwealth v. Markum green | 1 | 1993–1993 |
| Leidholdt v. L. F. P., Inc. green | 1 | 1993–1993 |
| Thomas J. Lipton, Inc. v. R. C. Bigelow, Inc. green | 1 | 1993–1993 |
| Kettering v. Berry green | 1 | 1993–1993 |
| Union National Bank of Wichita v. Mayberry green | 1 | 1992–1992 |
| State v. Kelly neutral | 1 | 1976–1976 |
| State v. Smith neutral | 1 | 1972–1972 |
| State v. Childs green | 1 | 1972–1972 |
| McQueeney v. State neutral | 1 | 1972–1972 |
| State v. Smith green | 1 | 1968–1968 |
| State v. Andrews green | 1 | 1967–1967 |
| Andrews v. Kansas green | 1 | 1967–1967 |
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.