First Amendment violation in Kansas

2025Ed. 2d 995 (2010) (to prevail on Eighth Amendment claim for cruel and unusual punishment, inmate must prove facts showing guards actually assaulted him and did so maliciously and sadistically); State v. Yurk, 203 Kan. 629, 634 , 456 P.2d 11 (1969); Camacho v. Brandon, 317 F.3d 153, 160 (2d Cir. 2003) (claimed First Amendment violation).

2025Ed. 2d 995 (2010) (to prevail on Eighth Amendment claim for cruel and unusual punishment, inmate must prove facts showing guards actually assaulted him and did so maliciously and sadistically); State v. Yurk, 203 Kan. 629, 634 , 456 P.2d 11 (1969); Camacho v. Brandon, 317 F.3d 153, 160 (2d Cir. 2003) (claimed First Amendment violation).

2024In making this assertion, Appellants rely primarily on California law, citing McGarry v. University of San Diego, 154 Cal. App. 4th 97, 108 , 64 Cal. Rptr. 3d 467 (2007), where the court stated that in considering whether plaintiff has met its evidentiary burden, it must consider pleadings and evidence.

2024In making this assertion, Appellants rely primarily on California law, citing McGarry v. University of San Diego, 154 Cal. App. 4th 97, 108 , 64 Cal. Rptr. 3d 467 (2007), where the court stated that in considering whether plaintiff has met its evidentiary burden, it must consider pleadings and evidence.

2022See e.g., State v. Gallegos, 313 Kan. 262 , 277, 485 P.3d 622 (2021); State v. Meggerson, 312 Kan. 238 , 246, 474 P.3d 761 (2020) (finding that the court may treat arguments without supporting authority as waived or abandoned); Kansas Supreme Court Rule 6.02(a)(5) (2022 Kan.

2022And in In re Arnold, 274 Kan. 761 , 56 P.3d 259 (2002), the court upheld the imposition of discipline for a violation of KRPC 8.2(a) against a First Amendment challenge when the attorney wrote a letter to a judge stating "'[y]ou simply don't have what is required to decide the kind of issues that you were presented with in this case'" and "'[y]our absurdly fastidious insistence on decorum and demeanor mask an underlying incompetence.'" 274 Kan. at 765 .

2022And in In re Arnold, 274 Kan. 761 , 56 P.3d 259 (2002), the court upheld the imposition of discipline for a violation of KRPC 8.2(a) against a First Amendment challenge when the attorney wrote a letter to a judge stating "'[y]ou simply don't have what is required to decide the kind of issues that you were presented with in this case'" and "'[y]our absurdly fastidious insistence on decorum and demeanor mask an underlying incompetence.'" 274 Kan. at 765 .

2014Fla. 2008) (unpublished opinion) (applying Turner test to claim of violation of right to free exercise of religion), aff'd 330 Fed.

2011Huffmier v. Hamilton, 30 Kan.

2011Huffmier v. Hamilton, 30 Kan.

2010Scholastica v. City of Atchison, 482 F.Supp.2d 1281 (D.Kan.2007), before concluding that the City "probably faces some potential legal action at least whichever way you go." Councilman Brett Blackburn observed that "there's probably not a feasible alternative." He concluded that "it comes down to our opinion if we think there is or is not a reasonable alternative." *546 Councilman Harmon asked the city attorney: "[A]re there any findings of fact we need to make in order to — separate and apart from Councilman Preisner's motion with respect to the First Amendment issue if that's the basis upon

2008Likewise, the majority did not pass on the movants’ First Amendment issue. 498 U.S. at 303 .

2008In his concurring opinion, Justice Stevens stressed “that the Court’s opinion should not be read to suggest that the deferential relevance standard the Court has formulated will govern ... in every case, no matter how intrusive or burdensome the request.” 498 U.S. at 306 .

2003For this reason, Robinson and Vinson are difficult to reconcile with Alden and Schall or the continuing line of Kansas cases which have followed: Goldbarth v. Kansas State Board of Regents, 269 Kan. 881 , 9 P.3d 1251 (2000) (in § 1983 claim, administrators in their individual capacity are entitled to qualified immunity; University and Regents may assert sovereign immunity under Alden); Connelly, 271 Kan. at 957 (no waiver of sovereign immunity on First Amendment claim or § 1983 claim for damages).

2003For this reason, Robinson and Vinson are difficult to reconcile with Alden and Schall or the continuing line of Kansas cases which have followed: Goldbarth v. Kansas State Board of Regents, 269 Kan. 881 , 9 P.3d 1251 (2000) (in § 1983 claim, administrators in their individual capacity are entitled to qualified immunity; University and Regents may assert sovereign immunity under Alden); Connelly, 271 Kan. at 957 (no waiver of sovereign immunity on First Amendment claim or § 1983 claim for damages).

2001Dennis, 19 Kan.

2001Dennis, 19 Kan.

2000N.H. 1994), and Cohen v. San Bernardino Valley College, 92 F.3d 968 (9th Cir.), cert. denied sub nom., Bee *892 man v. Cohen, 520 U.S. 1140 (1996), for the proposition that the individual conduct of Bowman and Patton may serve as the basis for a First Amendment violation.

2000N.H. 1994), and Cohen v. San Bernardino Valley College, 92 F.3d 968 (9th Cir.), cert. denied sub nom., Bee *892 man v. Cohen, 520 U.S. 1140 (1996), for the proposition that the individual conduct of Bowman and Patton may serve as the basis for a First Amendment violation.

2000N.H. 1994), and Cohen v. San Bernardino Valley College, 92 F.3d 968 (9th Cir.), cert. denied sub nom., Bee *892 man v. Cohen, 520 U.S. 1140 (1996), for the proposition that the individual conduct of Bowman and Patton may serve as the basis for a First Amendment violation.

2000N.H. 1994), and Cohen v. San Bernardino Valley College, 92 F.3d 968 (9th Cir.), cert. denied sub nom., Bee *892 man v. Cohen, 520 U.S. 1140 (1996), for the proposition that the individual conduct of Bowman and Patton may serve as the basis for a First Amendment violation.

1998Ed. 2d 626 ,] 92 S. Ct. 2646 (1972) (civil litigant’s procedural due process right to evidence, from a news reporter’s confidential source, overrides and defeats a reporter’s first amendment privilege).” Plaintiffs cite decisions from other states for the proposition that “no statutory privilege or trial court evidentiary ruling is valid when it excludes evidence” relevant to a determination.

1998Ed.2d 626 ,] 92 S. Ct. 2646 (1972) (civil litigant's procedural due process right to evidence, from a news reporter's confidential source, overrides and defeats a reporter's first amendment privilege)." Plaintiffs cite decisions from other states for the proposition that "no statutory privilege or trial court evidentiary ruling is valid when it excludes evidence" relevant to a determination.

1997“Nothing in our decision last Term in R.A.V. compels a different result here. . . . [Wjhereas the ordinance struck down in R.A.V. was explicitly directed at expression (i.e. ‘speech’ or ‘messages’), [citation omitted], the statute in this case is aimed at conduct unprotected by the First Amendment.” 508 U.S. at 487 .

1997“Nothing in our decision last Term in R.A.V. compels a different result here. . . . [Wjhereas the ordinance struck down in R.A.V. was explicitly directed at expression (i.e. ‘speech’ or ‘messages’), [citation omitted], the statute in this case is aimed at conduct unprotected by the First Amendment.” 508 U.S. at 487 .

1993Some additional portions of Connick v. Myers, 461 U.S. 138 , 75 L.

1993Some additional portions of Connick v. Myers, 461 U.S. 138 , 75 L.

1985The duty of an appellate court, when considering a challenge to legislation, was concisely stated in City of Baxter Springs v. Bryant, 226 Kan. 383 , 598 P.2d 1051 (1979): “The constitutionality of a statute is presumed, all doubts must be resolved in favor of its validity, and before the statute may be stricken down, it must clearly appear the statute violates the constitution.” Syl. ¶ 1.

1985The duty of an appellate court, when considering a challenge to legislation, was concisely stated in City of Baxter Springs v. Bryant, 226 Kan. 383 , 598 P.2d 1051 (1979): “The constitutionality of a statute is presumed, all doubts must be resolved in favor of its validity, and before the statute may be stricken down, it must clearly appear the statute violates the constitution.” Syl. ¶ 1.