154 Kansas opinions name it 2 courts 1965–2026 44 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. Kinggreen2 sentences2026State v. Campbell, 308 Kan. 763 , 770, 423 P.3d 539 (2018) (quoting State v. King, 288 Kan. 333, 349 , 204 P.3d 585 [2009]); see State v. Gaona, 293 Kan. 930, 956 , 270 P.3d 1165 (2012) ("The contemporaneous objection rule applies to evidence alleged to be admitted in violation of K.S.A. 60-455."). 2026State v. Campbell, 308 Kan. 763 , 770, 423 P.3d 539 (2018) (quoting State v. King, 288 Kan. 333, 349 , 204 P.3d 585 [2009]); see State v. Gaona, 293 Kan. 930, 956 , 270 P.3d 1165 (2012) ("The contemporaneous objection rule applies to evidence alleged to be admitted in violation of K.S.A. 60-455."). | 15 | 29 |
State v. Hartgreen2 sentences2026In Great American, a panel of our court noted that "Kansas appellate courts have, on occasion, refused to strictly apply the contemporaneous- objection rule in some contexts upon finding the underlying purpose for the rule has been satisfied." 2017 WL 5014883 , at *4 (citing State v. Hart, 297 Kan. 494, 510-11 , 301 P.3d 1279 [2013]; State v. Spagnola, 295 Kan. 1098, 1103 , 289 P.3d 68 [2012]; State v. Breedlove, 295 Kan. 481, 490-91 , 286 P.3d 1123 [2012]). 2026In Great American, a panel of our court noted that "Kansas appellate courts have, on occasion, refused to strictly apply the contemporaneous- objection rule in some contexts upon finding the underlying purpose for the rule has been satisfied." 2017 WL 5014883 , at *4 (citing State v. Hart, 297 Kan. 494, 510-11 , 301 P.3d 1279 [2013]; State v. Spagnola, 295 Kan. 1098, 1103 , 289 P.3d 68 [2012]; State v. Breedlove, 295 Kan. 481, 490-91 , 286 P.3d 1123 [2012]). | 7 | 8 |
State v. Richmondgreen2 sentences2021Moreover, it is not sufficient for a defendant to object on one ground and argue another ground on appeal. 309 Kan. at 810 ("The contemporaneous objection rule is not satisfied by objecting on one ground at trial and arguing another ground on appeal because it would undercut the statute's purpose."); 13 State v. Richmond, 289 Kan. 419, 429 , 212 P.3d 165 (2009)("[T]he trial court must be provided the specific objection so it may consider as fully as possible whether the evidence should be admitted and therefore reduce the chances of reversible error." [Emphasis added.]); see State v. George, 3 2021Moreover, it is not sufficient for a defendant to object on one ground and argue another ground on appeal. 309 Kan. at 810 ("The contemporaneous objection rule is not satisfied by objecting on one ground at trial and arguing another ground on appeal because it would undercut the statute's purpose."); 13 State v. Richmond, 289 Kan. 419, 429 , 212 P.3d 165 (2009)("[T]he trial court must be provided the specific objection so it may consider as fully as possible whether the evidence should be admitted and therefore reduce the chances of reversible error." [Emphasis added.]); see State v. George, 3 | 6 | 11 |
State v. Dukesgreen2 sentences2024See K.S.A. 60-404; State v. Dukes, 290 Kan. 485, 488 , 231 P.3d 558 (2010) ("The contemporaneous objection rule requires each party to make a specific and timely objection at trial in order to preserve evidentiary issues for appeal."). 2024See K.S.A. 60-404; State v. Dukes, 290 Kan. 485, 488 , 231 P.3d 558 (2010) ("The contemporaneous objection rule requires each party to make a specific and timely objection at trial in order to preserve evidentiary issues for appeal."). | 5 | 14 |
State v. Kellygreen2 sentences2017See State v. Kelly, 295 Kan. 587, 590 , 285 P.3d 1026 (2012) (explaining the contemporaneous objection rule and finding that a pretrial ruling is not sufficient because the materiality of the proposed evidence may not become apparent until other evidence has been admitted); State v. Bogguess, 293 Kan. 743 , Syl. ¶ 1, 268 P.3d 481 (2012) (finding the exception to the contemporaneous objection rule is explicitly limited to a bench trial on stipulated facts). 2017See State v. Kelly, 295 Kan. 587, 590 , 285 P.3d 1026 (2012) (explaining the contemporaneous objection rule and finding that a pretrial ruling is not sufficient because the materiality of the proposed evidence may not become apparent until other evidence has been admitted); State v. Bogguess, 293 Kan. 743 , Syl. ¶ 1, 268 P.3d 481 (2012) (finding the exception to the contemporaneous objection rule is explicitly limited to a bench trial on stipulated facts). | 4 | 6 |
State v. Gaonagreen2 sentences2026State v. Campbell, 308 Kan. 763 , 770, 423 P.3d 539 (2018) (quoting State v. King, 288 Kan. 333, 349 , 204 P.3d 585 [2009]); see State v. Gaona, 293 Kan. 930, 956 , 270 P.3d 1165 (2012) ("The contemporaneous objection rule applies to evidence alleged to be admitted in violation of K.S.A. 60-455."). 2026State v. Campbell, 308 Kan. 763 , 770, 423 P.3d 539 (2018) (quoting State v. King, 288 Kan. 333, 349 , 204 P.3d 585 [2009]); see State v. Gaona, 293 Kan. 930, 956 , 270 P.3d 1165 (2012) ("The contemporaneous objection rule applies to evidence alleged to be admitted in violation of K.S.A. 60-455."). | 3 | 6 |
State v. Parkergreen2 sentences2009Thus, the rationale underlying the contemporaneous objection rule has been met, and the issue is preserved for appeal." 277 Kan. at 845 , 89 P.3d 622 . 2009Thus, the rationale underlying the contemporaneous objection rule has been met, and the issue is preserved for appeal." 277 Kan. at 845 , 89 P.3d 622 . | 3 | 6 |
State v. Spagnolagreen2 sentences2026In Great American, a panel of our court noted that "Kansas appellate courts have, on occasion, refused to strictly apply the contemporaneous- objection rule in some contexts upon finding the underlying purpose for the rule has been satisfied." 2017 WL 5014883 , at *4 (citing State v. Hart, 297 Kan. 494, 510-11 , 301 P.3d 1279 [2013]; State v. Spagnola, 295 Kan. 1098, 1103 , 289 P.3d 68 [2012]; State v. Breedlove, 295 Kan. 481, 490-91 , 286 P.3d 1123 [2012]). 2026In Great American, a panel of our court noted that "Kansas appellate courts have, on occasion, refused to strictly apply the contemporaneous- objection rule in some contexts upon finding the underlying purpose for the rule has been satisfied." 2017 WL 5014883 , at *4 (citing State v. Hart, 297 Kan. 494, 510-11 , 301 P.3d 1279 [2013]; State v. Spagnola, 295 Kan. 1098, 1103 , 289 P.3d 68 [2012]; State v. Breedlove, 295 Kan. 481, 490-91 , 286 P.3d 1123 [2012]). | 2 | 12 |
State v. Ballougreen2 sentences2024"The contemporaneous objection rule is set forth in K.S.A. 60-404, which generally precludes an appellate court from reviewing an evidentiary challenge absent a timely and specific objection made on the record." (Emphasis added.) State v. Showalter, 318 Kan. 338 , 345, 543 P.3d 508 (2024) (citing State v. Ballou, 310 Kan. 591 , 613-14, 448 P.3d 479 [2019]). 2022It is expressly contrary to our Supreme Court's controlling interpretation of the contemporaneous objection rule under K.S.A. 60-404 as explained in State v. Ballou, 310 Kan. 591 , 613-14, 448 P.3d 479 (2019) (pretrial objections alone generally insufficient to preserve issue for appeal; K.S.A. 60-404 requires "timely interposed objection," which means objection must come between attempt to offer evidence and its admission at trial). | 2 | 10 |
State v. McCaslingreen2 sentences2018See State v. McCaslin , 291 Kan. 697 , 707, 245 P.3d 1030 (2011) (explaining the purpose of the contemporaneous objection rule), overruled on other grounds by State v. Astorga , 299 Kan. 395 , 324 P.3d 1046 (2014). 2018See State v. McCaslin , 291 Kan. 697 , 707, 245 P.3d 1030 (2011) (explaining the purpose of the contemporaneous objection rule), overruled on other grounds by State v. Astorga , 299 Kan. 395 , 324 P.3d 1046 (2014). | 2 | 3 |
Baker v. Stategreen2 sentences2009Discussion The contemporaneous-objection rule is codified in K.S.A. 60-404 and provides that a timely and specific objection to evidence at trial is required to preserve issues arising from that admission on appeal: “A verdict or finding shall not be set aside, nor shall the judgment or decision based thereon be reversed, by reason of the erroneous admission of evidence unless there appears of record objection to the evidence timely interposed and so stated as to make clear the specific ground of objection.” This court considered the legislature’s purpose for enacting the contemporaneous-objec 2009Discussion The contemporaneous-objection rule is codified in K.S.A. 60-404 and provides that a timely and specific objection to evidence at trial is required to preserve issues arising from that admission on appeal: “A verdict or finding shall not be set aside, nor shall the judgment or decision based thereon be reversed, by reason of the erroneous admission of evidence unless there appears of record objection to the evidence timely interposed and so stated as to make clear the specific ground of objection.” This court considered the legislature’s purpose for enacting the contemporaneous-objec | 1 | 11 |
State v. Bogguessgreen2 sentences2026If the bench trial is conducted by the same judge who presided over a hearing on the motion to suppress that evidence, the lack of a contemporaneous objection does not bar our review of the ruling on the motion to suppress." State v. Bogguess, 293 Kan. 743 , Syl. ¶ 1, 268 P.3d 481 (2012). 2026If the bench trial is conducted by the same judge who presided over a hearing on the motion to suppress that evidence, the lack of a contemporaneous objection does not bar our review of the ruling on the motion to suppress." State v. Bogguess, 293 Kan. 743 , Syl. ¶ 1, 268 P.3d 481 (2012). | 1 | 6 |
State v. Houstongreen2 sentences2017This is known as "the contemporaneous-objection rule and is codified in K.S.A. 60-404. [Citation omitted.] Specifically, the statute requires an on-the-record 'objection to the evidence timely interposed and so stated as to make clear the specific ground of objection.'" 289 Kan. at 270 . 2010See State v. Raschke, 289 Kan. 911, 913 , 219 P.3d 481 (2009); State v. Houston, 289 Kan. 252, 270 , 213 P.3d 728 (2009); State v. King, 288 Kan. 333, 341-42, 204 P.3d 585 (2009) (describing the contemporaneous objection rule). | 1 | 5 |
State v. Randlegreen2 sentences2024In State v. Randle, 311 Kan. 468, 480 , 462 P.3d 624 (2020), our Supreme Court found it could consider a defendant's challenge to the admissibility of evidence—despite defense counsel's vague grounds for objecting—because the "purposes of the contemporaneous objection rule under K.S.A. 60-404 were fulfilled." The Randle court reasoned that while defense counsel "misspoke as to the specific grounds on which he was objecting," the district court nevertheless "knew the issue associated with the video and had the opportunity to rule on it." 311 Kan. at 480 ; see also State v. D.W., 318 Kan. 575 , 2024But under the facts of that case, the district court "knew the issue associated with the video and had the opportunity to rule on it," so we held that "the purposes of the contemporaneous objection rule under K.S.A. 60-404 were fulfilled." 311 Kan. at 480 . | 1 | 5 |
State v. Boydgreen2 sentences2019See State v. Boyd, 257 Kan. 82, 89 , 891 P.2d 358 (1995) (generally timely objection necessary to give trial court opportunity to correct any alleged errors). 2019See State v. Boyd, 257 Kan. 82, 89 , 891 P.2d 358 (1995) (generally timely objection necessary to give trial court opportunity to correct any alleged errors). | 1 | 3 |
State v. Georgegreen2 sentences2024"A defendant may not evade the contemporaneous objection requirement demanded by K.S.A. 60-404 by asserting an evidentiary claim on appeal under the guise of prosecutorial error." State v. George, 311 Kan. 693 , Syl. ¶ 2, 466 P.3d 469 (2020); see also State v. Miller, 293 Kan. 535, 550 , 264 P.3d 461 (2011) (While a contemporaneous objection is required for review of an evidentiary prosecutorial error claim, it is unnecessary to consider prosecutorial error during closing argument.). 2024K.S.A. 60-404; Lowery, 308 Kan. at 1195-96; see also State v. George, 311 Kan. 693 , Syl. ¶ 2, 466 P.3d 469 (2020) ("A defendant may not evade the contemporaneous objection requirement demanded by K.S.A. 60-404 by asserting an evidentiary claim on appeal under the guise of prosecutorial error."). | 1 | 2 |
| State v. Cheevergreen | 1 | 2 |
| State v. Randolphgreen | 1 | 2 |
State v. Kleypasgreen2 sentences2022See Kleypas I, 272 Kan. at 1090 . 2002Kleypas, 272 Kan. 894 , Syl. ¶ 19. | 1 | 2 |
| State v. Garcia-Garciagreen | 1 | 2 |
| State v. Maysgreen | 1 | 2 |
| State v. Hernandezgreen | 1 | 2 |
| State v. Brinkleygreen | 1 | 1 |
| State v. Millergreen | 1 | 1 |
| State v. D.W.green | 1 | 1 |
| State v. Rodartegreen | 1 | 1 |
| State v. Astorgagreen | 1 | 1 |
| State v. Johnsongreen | 1 | 1 |
| Kansas v. Marshgreen | 1 | 1 |
| State v. Bornholdtgreen | 1 | 1 |
| State v. Marshgreen | 1 | 1 |
| State v. Murraygreen | 1 | 1 |
| State v. Bryantgreen | 1 | 1 |
| State v. Anthonygreen | 1 | 1 |
| State v. Johnsongreen | 1 | 1 |
| State v. Raschkegreen | 1 | 1 |
| State v. Haddockgreen | 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. Gordon
green
2 sentences2021Collins' argument mirrors the reasoning stated in State v. Gordon, 219 Kan. 643, 651-52 , 549 P.2d 886 (1976), superseded by statute on other grounds as stated in State v. Murry, 271 Kan. 223 , 21 P.3d 528 (2001), wherein our Supreme Court concluded that an objection made in a posttrial brief after a bench trial was timely because "under the circumstances of [the] case the spirit if not the letter of the contemporaneous objection rule was satisfied." The Kansas Supreme Court has reaffirmed this holding on several occasions, permitting appellate review without a contemporaneous objection at a b 2021Collins' argument mirrors the reasoning stated in State v. Gordon, 219 Kan. 643, 651-52 , 549 P.2d 886 (1976), superseded by statute on other grounds as stated in State v. Murry, 271 Kan. 223 , 21 P.3d 528 (2001), wherein our Supreme Court concluded that an objection made in a posttrial brief after a bench trial was timely because "under the circumstances of [the] case the spirit if not the letter of the contemporaneous objection rule was satisfied." The Kansas Supreme Court has reaffirmed this holding on several occasions, permitting appellate review without a contemporaneous objection at a b | 8 | 1979–2024 |
State v. Breedlove
green
2 sentences2026In Great American, a panel of our court noted that "Kansas appellate courts have, on occasion, refused to strictly apply the contemporaneous- objection rule in some contexts upon finding the underlying purpose for the rule has been satisfied." 2017 WL 5014883 , at *4 (citing State v. Hart, 297 Kan. 494, 510-11 , 301 P.3d 1279 [2013]; State v. Spagnola, 295 Kan. 1098, 1103 , 289 P.3d 68 [2012]; State v. Breedlove, 295 Kan. 481, 490-91 , 286 P.3d 1123 [2012]). 2026In Great American, a panel of our court noted that "Kansas appellate courts have, on occasion, refused to strictly apply the contemporaneous- objection rule in some contexts upon finding the underlying purpose for the rule has been satisfied." 2017 WL 5014883 , at *4 (citing State v. Hart, 297 Kan. 494, 510-11 , 301 P.3d 1279 [2013]; State v. Spagnola, 295 Kan. 1098, 1103 , 289 P.3d 68 [2012]; State v. Breedlove, 295 Kan. 481, 490-91 , 286 P.3d 1123 [2012]). | 7 | 2014–2026 |
State v. Estes
neutral
2 sentences2012The rule is a corollary of the contemporaneous objection rule as to evidence (K.S.A. 60-404; State v. Estes, 216 Kan. 382 , 532 P.2d 1283 [1975]) and the requirement of an objection to erroneous instructions (K.S.A. 60-251[b]; Ap- person v. Security State Bank, 215 Kan. 724 , 528 P.2d 1211 [1974]). 2012The rule is a corollary of the contemporaneous objection rule as to evidence (K.S.A. 60-404; State v. Estes, 216 Kan. 382 , 532 P.2d 1283 [1975]) and the requirement of an objection to erroneous instructions (K.S.A. 60-251[b]; Ap- person v. Security State Bank, 215 Kan. 724 , 528 P.2d 1211 [1974]). | 5 | 1975–2012 |
State v. Buggs
green
2 sentences2014If not raised below, explain why the issue is. properly before the court.’ ”); State v. Buggs, 219 Kan. 203, 208 , 547 P.2d 720 (1976) (stating the rule is “a corollary” of the contemporaneous objection rule as to evidence and the requirement of an objection to erroneous instructions; “[a] party is not permitted to remain silent in the face of known error, gamble on the verdict, and show his hole card only if he loses”). 2014If not raised below, explain why the issue is. properly before the court.’ ”); State v. Buggs, 219 Kan. 203, 208 , 547 P.2d 720 (1976) (stating the rule is “a corollary” of the contemporaneous objection rule as to evidence and the requirement of an objection to erroneous instructions; “[a] party is not permitted to remain silent in the face of known error, gamble on the verdict, and show his hole card only if he loses”). | 4 | 1986–2017 |
State v. Parson
green
2 sentences2013Similarly, in State v. Parson, 226 Kan. 491, 493-94 , 601 P.2d 680 (1979), our Supreme Court, citing Gordon , relaxed the contemporaneous objection rule by holding that the appellant’s objections to the evidence stated in his argument in a motion for judgment of acquittal filed at the close of the State’s case during a bench trial were sufficiently timely to obtain appellate review. 2013Similarly, in State v. Parson, 226 Kan. 491, 493-94 , 601 P.2d 680 (1979), our Supreme Court, citing Gordon , relaxed the contemporaneous objection rule by holding that the appellant’s objections to the evidence stated in his argument in a motion for judgment of acquittal filed at the close of the State’s case during a bench trial were sufficiently timely to obtain appellate review. | 4 | 2000–2013 |
State v. Hollingsworth
green
2 sentences2011See State v. Dukes, 290 Kan. 485, 488 , 231 P.3d 558 (2010) (citing Richmond, 289 Kan. at 429-30 [expressing concern that the contemporaneous objection rule “ ‘case-law exceptions would soon swallow the general statutory rule’ ”]); Hollingsworth, 289 Kan. at 1256-57 ; State v. King, 288 Kan. 333, 349 , 204 P.3d 585 [2009]; State v. Mays, 277 Kan. 359, 384-85 , 85 P.3d 1208 [2004]); see also State v. Johnson, 286 Kan. 824, 839 , 190 P.3d 207 (2008) (holding that a failure to object to the admission of prior consistent statements resulted in the issue not being preserved for appeal). 2010From today forward, in accordance with the plain language of K.S.A. 60-404, evidentiary claims-including questions posed by a prosecutor and responses to those questions during trialmust be preserved by way of a contemporaneous objection for those claims to be reviewed on appeal." Since King , our Supreme Court has consistently "been refusing to review an evidentiary issue without a timely and specific objection even if the issue involves a fundamental right." State v. Dukes, 290 Kan. at 488 , 231 P.3d 558 ; see State v. Richmond, 289 Kan. 419, 429-30 , 212 P.3d 165 (2009) (where our Supreme | 4 | 2010–2011 |
Henry v. Mississippi
green
2 sentences2009Henry v. Mississippi, 379 U.S. 443 , 13 L. 1965Ed. 2d 408 , 85 S. Ct. 564 , he is not precluded from raising a federal constitutional question concerning the admissibility of evidence, although,he did not comply with a state rule of procedure, namely, the contemporaneous objection rule. | 4 | 1965–2009 |
State v. Jones
green
2 sentences2012Per this requirement, Kansas courts have rejected a party’s claim of compliance with the contemporaneous objection rule and refused appellate review when the objection was renewed just before the jury was sworn (State v. Jones, 267 Kan. 627, 637-38 , 984 P.2d 132 [1999], abrogated by State v. Deal, 293 Kan. 872 , 269 P.3d 1282 [2012]) and when renewed as the State rested its case (State v. Daniels, 28 Kan. 2012Per this requirement, Kansas courts have rejected a party’s claim of compliance with the contemporaneous objection rule and refused appellate review when the objection was renewed just before the jury was sworn (State v. Jones, 267 Kan. 627, 637-38 , 984 P.2d 132 [1999], abrogated by State v. Deal, 293 Kan. 872 , 269 P.3d 1282 [2012]) and when renewed as the State rested its case (State v. Daniels, 28 Kan. | 3 | 2000–2012 |
State v. Freeman
green
2 sentences1984And see State v. Freeman, 195 Kan. 561 , Syl. ¶ 1, 408 P.2d 612 , cert. denied 384 U.S. 1025 (1965); State v. Patchett, 229 Kan. 163 , Syl. ¶ 6, 621 P.2d 1011 (1981). 1984And see State v. Freeman, 195 Kan. 561 , Syl. ¶ 1, 408 P.2d 612 , cert. denied 384 U.S. 1025 (1965); State v. Patchett, 229 Kan. 163 , Syl. ¶ 6, 621 P.2d 1011 (1981). | 3 | 1966–1984 |
State v. Shepherd
green
2 sentences1975Since defendant failed to make timely objection to evidence of the first subsequent incident, appellate review is foreclosed pursuant to the contemporaneous objection rule prescribed by K.S.A. 60-404. ( State v. Horne, 215 Kan. 448 , 524 P.2d 697 ; and State v. Shepherd, 213 Kan. 498 , 516 P.2d 945 .) Nevertheless, we have examined the testimony concerning the first, or June 12, incident and find the rape and sodomy committed on that occasion to have been perpetrated under circumstances very similar to those shown in the case on trial. 1975Since defendant failed to make timely objection to evidence of the first subsequent incident, appellate review is foreclosed pursuant to the contemporaneous objection rule prescribed by K.S.A. 60-404. ( State v. Horne, 215 Kan. 448 , 524 P.2d 697 ; and State v. Shepherd, 213 Kan. 498 , 516 P.2d 945 .) Nevertheless, we have examined the testimony concerning the first, or June 12, incident and find the rape and sodomy committed on that occasion to have been perpetrated under circumstances very similar to those shown in the case on trial. | 3 | 1974–1978 |
State v. Moore
green
2 sentences2026The contemporaneous objection requirement is applied "even in cases where an evidentiary claim involve[s] a defendant's constitutional rights." State v. Moore, 302 Kan. 685, 698 , 357 P.3d 275 (2015). 2026The contemporaneous objection requirement is applied "even in cases where an evidentiary claim involve[s] a defendant's constitutional rights." State v. Moore, 302 Kan. 685, 698 , 357 P.3d 275 (2015). | 2 | 2021–2026 |
State v. Showalter
green
2 sentences2026State v. Showalter, 318 Kan. 338 , 345, 543 P.3d 508 (2024); State v. Brinkley, 256 Kan. 808, 824 , 888 P.2d 819 (1995) ("A 6 motion for new trial generally does not satisfy the contemporaneous objection requirement of K.S.A. 60-404."). 2024"The contemporaneous objection rule is set forth in K.S.A. 60-404, which generally precludes an appellate court from reviewing an evidentiary challenge absent a timely and specific objection made on the record." (Emphasis added.) State v. Showalter, 318 Kan. 338 , 345, 543 P.3d 508 (2024) (citing State v. Ballou, 310 Kan. 591 , 613-14, 448 P.3d 479 [2019]). | 2 | 2024–2026 |
State v. Brown
green
2 sentences2022See K.S.A. 60-404; Brown, 307 Kan. at 645 . 26 Similarly, Buchanan also did not preserve his claim that the State removed confidential trial strategy notes from him while he was on the stand. 2020State v. Brown, 307 Kan. 641, 645 , 413 P.3d 783 (2018). | 2 | 2020–2022 |
| State v. Butler green | 2 | 2021–2022 |
| State v. Murry green | 2 | 2012–2021 |
| State v. Holt green | 2 | 2013–2017 |
| State v. Williams green | 2 | 2015–2016 |
| Apperson v. Security State Bank green | 2 | 1986–2012 |
| State v. Moore green | 2 | 2002–2010 |
| State v. Downey green | 2 | 2001–2003 |
| State v. Harris green | 2 | 2000–2001 |
| State v. Ruebke green | 2 | 2001–2001 |
| Flowers v. Morris green | 2 | 2001–2001 |
| State v. Campbell green | 1 | 2026–2026 |
| State v. Crudo green | 1 | 2026–2026 |
| State v. Hall green | 1 | 2026–2026 |
| State v. Race green | 1 | 2025–2025 |
| In the Interest of Kerns green | 1 | 2024–2024 |
| In Re Interests K.H. green | 1 | 2024–2024 |
| State v. Potts green | 1 | 2024–2024 |
| State v. Lowery green | 1 | 2022–2022 |
| State v. Shadden green | 1 | 2021–2021 |
| State v. Wheaton green | 1 | 2017–2017 |
| Kansas v. Cheever green | 1 | 2016–2016 |
| State v. Collier green | 1 | 2012–2012 |
| State v. Deal green | 1 | 2012–2012 |
| State v. Synoracki green | 1 | 2012–2012 |
| State v. Spagnola green | 1 | 2012–2012 |
| State v. Francis green | 1 | 2012–2012 |
| State v. Daniels green | 1 | 2012–2012 |
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.