22 Kansas opinions name it 2 courts 1989–2026 17 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. Gensongreen2 sentences2024See State v. Genson, 316 Kan. 130 , 135-36, 513 P.3d 1192 (2022) (finding that appellate court can exercise its discretion to consider whether to apply a prudential exception to the general rule that issues not raised before the district court cannot be raised for the first time on appeal). 2023See State v. Genson, 316 Kan. 130 , 135-36, 513 P.3d 1192 (2022) (finding that appellate court can exercise its discretion to consider whether to apply a prudential exception to the general rule that issues not raised before the district court cannot be raised for the first time on appeal). | 2 | 2 |
Herington v. City of Wichitagreen2 sentences2022See Herington v. City of Wichita, 314 Kan. 447 , 458-59, 500 P.3d 1168 (2021). 2022See Herington v. City of Wichita, 314 Kan. 447 , 458-59, 500 P.3d 1168 (2021). | 2 | 2 |
State v. Roatgreen2 sentences2024Although mootness is a prudential doctrine which allows exceptions, State v. Roat, 311 Kan. 581 , 590, 466 P.3d 439 (2020), Ridley argues no exception. 2021See State v. Roat, 311 Kan. 581 , 590, 466 P.3d 439 (2020) ("Both the history of the mootness doctrine in Kansas, with the law developing on a prudential basis independent of federal analysis, and the problem of exceptions to the jurisdictional basis that inheres in the federal constitutional reasoning, lead us to conclude that the better approach is to consider mootness a prudential doctrine."). | 1 | 4 |
State v. Spagnolagreen2 sentences2024See, e.g., State v. Spagnola, 295 Kan. 1098, 1103 , 289 P.3d 68 (2012) (timely objection not required during bench trial because same suppression arguments were made to the same judge pretrial); State v. Breedlove, 295 Kan. 481, 490-91 , 286 P.3d 1123 (2012) (noting record made clear trial judge understood the legal basis for an objection when counsel simply referred to it as an 18 "'earlier objection'" or a "'prior objection'"). 2024See, e.g., State v. Spagnola, 295 Kan. 1098, 1103 , 289 P.3d 68 (2012) (timely objection not required during bench trial because same suppression arguments were made to the same judge pretrial); State v. Breedlove, 295 Kan. 481, 490-91 , 286 P.3d 1123 (2012) (noting record made clear trial judge understood the legal basis for an objection when counsel simply referred to it as an 18 "'earlier objection'" or a "'prior objection'"). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Gutierrez-Fuentesgreen1 sentence2022See State v. Gutierrez-Fuentes, 315 Kan. 341 , 347, 508 P.3d 378 (2022) ("[B]efore invoking one of the limited exceptions, an appellate court must also determine whether the unpreserved issue is amenable to resolution on appeal. | 1 | 1 |
State v. Johnsongreen1 sentence2020See State v. Johnson, 310 Kan. 909 , 912-13, 5 453 P.3d 281 (2019) (noting Court of Appeals preservation ruling subject to abuse of discretion review); State v. Parry, 305 Kan. 1189 , 1192, 390 P.3d 879 (2017) (explaining that "preservation is a prudential rule, rather than a jurisdictional bar" and thus reviewing a Court of Appeals decision to reach or not reach an unpreserved issue for abuse of discretion). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Phillipsgreen2 sentences2017See State v. Phillips, 299 Kan. 479, 493 , 325 P.3d 1095 (2014) (providing several exceptions to the general rule that a new legal theory may not be asserted for the first time on appeal). 7 Because issue preservation is a prudential rule, rather than a jurisdictional bar, appellate courts have the discretion to apply exceptions to the general rule. 2017See State v. Phillips, 299 Kan. 479, 493 , 325 P.3d 1095 (2014) (providing several exceptions to the general rule that a new legal theory may not be asserted for the first time on appeal). 7 Because issue preservation is a prudential rule, rather than a jurisdictional bar, appellate courts have the discretion to apply exceptions to the general rule. | 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. Frye
green
2 sentences2021State v. Frye, 294 Kan. 364 , Syl. ¶ 2, 277 P.3d 1091 (2012). 2021State v. Frye, 294 Kan. 364 , Syl. ¶ 2, 277 P.3d 1091 (2012). | 3 | 2016–2021 |
State v. Scheetz
green
1 sentence2026Our Supreme Court has made it clear that this court is not to ignore this prudential rule simply because the parties 4 may agree that an unpreserved issue should be considered or because it is "lured into exploring uncharted legal frontiers." See State v. Scheetz, 318 Kan. 48 , 61-62, 541 P.3d 79 (2024). | 1 | 2026–2026 |
In re A.S.
green
1 sentence2026She cites to In re A.S., 319 Kan. 396 , 402, 555 P.3d 732 (2024), for the proposition that she is not required "to explain the issue was preserved, but rather why an unpreserved issue should be considered." The State argues that we should not reach the merits of Mother's argument because she raises the issue for the first time on appeal. | 1 | 2026–2026 |
Hodes & Nauser, MDS, P.A. v. Schmidt
green
1 sentence2026The court declined to extend a prudential exception to review Kemmerly's unpreserved claim and observed that necessary factual development was absent: "And while Kemmerly simply claims that section 4 always prohibits any restriction on the possession of firearms, the State—the party to whom the burden would shift if strict scrutiny were applied—has had no opportunity to develop a factual record 'to establish the requisite compelling interest and narrow tailoring of the law to serve it.'" 319 Kan. at 104 (quoting Hodes & Nauser, MDs v. Schmidt, 309 Kan. 610 , 669, 440 P.3d 461 [2019])." The Kem | 1 | 2026–2026 |
State v. Montgomery
green
1 sentence2024Roat, 311 Kan. at 590; Montgomery, 295 Kan. at 841 . | 1 | 2024–2024 |
State v. Breedlove
green
2 sentences2024See, e.g., State v. Spagnola, 295 Kan. 1098, 1103 , 289 P.3d 68 (2012) (timely objection not required during bench trial because same suppression arguments were made to the same judge pretrial); State v. Breedlove, 295 Kan. 481, 490-91 , 286 P.3d 1123 (2012) (noting record made clear trial judge understood the legal basis for an objection when counsel simply referred to it as an 18 "'earlier objection'" or a "'prior objection'"). 2024See, e.g., State v. Spagnola, 295 Kan. 1098, 1103 , 289 P.3d 68 (2012) (timely objection not required during bench trial because same suppression arguments were made to the same judge pretrial); State v. Breedlove, 295 Kan. 481, 490-91 , 286 P.3d 1123 (2012) (noting record made clear trial judge understood the legal basis for an objection when counsel simply referred to it as an 18 "'earlier objection'" or a "'prior objection'"). | 1 | 2024–2024 |
State v. Hart
green
2 sentences2024Finally, we must discuss Scheetz' frequent refrain that K.S.A. 60-404 is a prudential rule rather than a jurisdictional bar, citing State v. Hart, 297 Kan. 494, 510 , 301 P.3d 1279 (2013). 2024Finally, we must discuss Scheetz' frequent refrain that K.S.A. 60-404 is a prudential rule rather than a jurisdictional bar, citing State v. Hart, 297 Kan. 494, 510 , 301 P.3d 1279 (2013). | 1 | 2024–2024 |
State v. Aguirre
green
1 sentence2022The party arguing an abuse of discretion bears the burden of establishing that abuse.'" State v. Aguirre, 313 Kan. 189 , 195, 485 P.3d 576 (2021) (quoting State v. Corbin, 311 Kan. 385 , 390, 461 P.3d 38 [2020]). | 1 | 2022–2022 |
Pierce v. Board of County Commissioners
green
2 sentences2022The State relies on an exception that allows us to consider issues raised for the first time on appeal if the issue "'involves only a question of law arising on proved or admitted facts and which is finally determinative of the case.'" State v. Parry, 305 Kan. 1189 , 1193, 390 P.3d 879 (2017) (quoting Pierce v. Board of County Commissioners, 200 Kan. 74, 80-81 , 434 P.2d 858 [1967]). 2022The State relies on an exception that allows us to consider issues raised for the first time on appeal if the issue "'involves only a question of law arising on proved or admitted facts and which is finally determinative of the case.'" State v. Parry, 305 Kan. 1189 , 1193, 390 P.3d 879 (2017) (quoting Pierce v. Board of County Commissioners, 200 Kan. 74, 80-81 , 434 P.2d 858 [1967]). | 1 | 2022–2022 |
State v. Corbin
neutral
1 sentence2022The party arguing an abuse of discretion bears the burden of establishing that abuse.'" State v. Aguirre, 313 Kan. 189 , 195, 485 P.3d 576 (2021) (quoting State v. Corbin, 311 Kan. 385 , 390, 461 P.3d 38 [2020]). | 1 | 2022–2022 |
State v. Rizo
green
2 sentences2017State v. Rizo, 304 Kan. 974, 979 , 377 P.3d 419 (2016). 2017State v. Rizo, 304 Kan. 974, 979 , 377 P.3d 419 (2016). | 1 | 2017–2017 |
Montoya v. Travelers Insurance
neutral
2 sentences1989Co., 91 N.M. 667 , 579 P.2d 793 (1978), a clause virtually indistinguishable from the Prudential clause was considered in its entirety and the modifying phrase of subpart (b) was also applied to subpart (a). 1989Co., 91 N.M. 667 , 579 P.2d 793 (1978), a clause virtually indistinguishable from the Prudential clause was considered in its entirety and the modifying phrase of subpart (b) was also applied to subpart (a). | 1 | 1989–1989 |
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.