general statutory rule in Kansas

21 Kansas opinions name it 2 courts 1984–2024 4 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.

Followed or applied (8)

Case	Followed	Cited
State v. Richmondgreen kan · 2009 · cited in 13 Kansas opinions naming this issue, 2010–2024 2 sentences 2021The Supreme Court has also warned that if it were to overlook a contemporaneous objection "and consider the issue because it is necessary to serve the ends of justice or to prevent the denial of [the defendant]'s right to a fair trial, these and other case law exceptions would soon swallow the general statutory rule." Richmond, 289 Kan. at 429-30 . 2018Dukes , 290 Kan. at 488 , 231 P.3d 558 (identifying the exceptions and expressing concern that the contemporaneous objection rule "case law exceptions would soon swallow the general statutory rule [ K.S.A. 60-404 ]") (citing State v. Richmond , 289 Kan. 419 , 429-30, 212 P.3d 165 [2009] ).	5	13
State v. Dukesgreen kan · 2010 · cited in 7 Kansas opinions naming this issue, 2010–2022 2 sentences 2022See Dukes, 290 Kan. at 488 (identifying the exceptions and "expressing concern that the contemporaneous objection rule 'case law exceptions would soon swallow the general statutory rule'"). 2018Dukes , 290 Kan. at 488 , 231 P.3d 558 (identifying the exceptions and expressing concern that the contemporaneous objection rule "case law exceptions would soon swallow the general statutory rule [ K.S.A. 60-404 ]") (citing State v. Richmond , 289 Kan. 419 , 429-30, 212 P.3d 165 [2009] ).	2	7
State v. Kinggreen kan · 2009 · cited in 6 Kansas opinions naming this issue, 2009–2021 2 sentences 2014This court has held, however, that if an appellate court was to overlook the lack of an objection “ ‘because it is necessary to serve the ends of justice or to prevent the denial of [a defendant’s] right to a fair trial, these and other caselaw exceptions would soon swallow the general statutory rule’ of K.S.A. 60-404.” State v. Randolph, 297 Kan. 320, 335 , 301 P.3d 300 (2013) (quoting Richmond, 289 Kan. at 429-30 ); see State v. Harris, 293 Kan. 798, 813 , 269 P.3d 820 (2012) (noting that this court has disapproved of any past loosening of K.S.A. 60-404 requirement of specific and timely obj 2011See 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).	2	6
State v. Randolphgreen kan · 2013 · cited in 4 Kansas opinions naming this issue, 2014–2024 2 sentences 2016See State v. Randolph, 297 Kan. 320, 335 , 301 P.3d 300 (2013) (cannot allow the caselaw exception to "'swallow the general statutory rule'"). 2016See State v. Randolph, 297 Kan. 320, 335 , 301 P.3d 300 (2013) (cannot allow the caselaw exception to "'swallow the general statutory rule'").	2	4
State v. Harrisgreen kan · 2012 · cited in 3 Kansas opinions naming this issue, 2013–2015 2 sentences 2015State v. Raskie, 293 Kan. 906, 919 , 269 P.3d 1268 (2012); see State v. Randolph, 297 Kan. 320, 335 , 301 P.3d 300 (2013) (holding that if an appellate court was to overlook die lack of an objection “ ‘because it is necessary to serve die ends of justice or to prevent the denial of [a defendant’s] right to a fair trial, these and other caselaw exceptions would soon swallow the general statutory rule’ of K.S.A. 60-404”); State v. Harris, 293 Kan. 798, 813 , 269 P.3d 820 (2012) (noting disapproval of any past loosening of K.S.A. 60-404 requirement of specific and timely objections). 2015State v. Raskie, 293 Kan. 906, 919 , 269 P.3d 1268 (2012); see State v. Randolph, 297 Kan. 320, 335 , 301 P.3d 300 (2013) (holding that if an appellate court was to overlook die lack of an objection “ ‘because it is necessary to serve die ends of justice or to prevent the denial of [a defendant’s] right to a fair trial, these and other caselaw exceptions would soon swallow the general statutory rule’ of K.S.A. 60-404”); State v. Harris, 293 Kan. 798, 813 , 269 P.3d 820 (2012) (noting disapproval of any past loosening of K.S.A. 60-404 requirement of specific and timely objections).	2	3
State v. Maysgreen kan · 2004 · cited in 2 Kansas opinions naming this issue, 2010–2011 2 sentences 2011See 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). 2011See 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).	1	2
Keiswetter v. Stategreen kan · 2016 · cited in 1 Kansas opinions naming this issue, 2019–2019 2 sentences 2019Express Co ., 4 S.W.2d 847 [Mo. App. 1928] ); see generally Keiswetter v. State , 304 Kan. 362 , 368, 373 P.3d 803 (2016) (finding in Kansas Tort Claims Act cases that the State has the burden to establish it is immune from liability under an exception to the general statutory rule of liability); Messner v. Continental Plastic Containers , 48 Kan. 2019Express Co ., 4 S.W.2d 847 [Mo. App. 1928] ); see generally Keiswetter v. State , 304 Kan. 362 , 368, 373 P.3d 803 (2016) (finding in Kansas Tort Claims Act cases that the State has the burden to establish it is immune from liability under an exception to the general statutory rule of liability); Messner v. Continental Plastic Containers , 48 Kan.	1	1
State v. Johnsongreen kan · 2008 · cited in 1 Kansas opinions naming this issue, 2011–2011 2 sentences 2011See 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). 2011See 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).	1	1

Distinguished, questioned or overruled (0)

Case	Negative	Cited
No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Kansas. Read the followed side critically anyway.

Also cited on this issue (10)

Case	Cited	Years
State v. Hollingsworth green kan · 2009 2 sentences 2011See 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	5	2010–2011
State v. Lowery green kan · 2018 1 sentence 2022State v. Lowery, 308 Kan. 1183 , 1196, 427 P.3d 865 (2018).	1	2022–2022
State v. Brown green kan · 2018 2 sentences 2021Most recently, our Supreme Court stated: "Subsequent to State v. King, 288 Kan. 333, 342 , 204 P.3d 585 (2009), the three judicially recognized exceptions allowing appellate review of issues not raised below have not been applied to absolve a party of K.S.A. 60-404 violations." State v. Brown, 307 Kan. 641 , Syl. ¶ 2, 413 P.3d 783 (2018). 2021Most recently, our Supreme Court stated: "Subsequent to State v. King, 288 Kan. 333, 342 , 204 P.3d 585 (2009), the three judicially recognized exceptions allowing appellate review of issues not raised below have not been applied to absolve a party of K.S.A. 60-404 violations." State v. Brown, 307 Kan. 641 , Syl. ¶ 2, 413 P.3d 783 (2018).	1	2021–2021
State v. Estrada-Vital green kan · 2015 2 sentences 2019App. 2d 731 , 751, 298 P.3d 371 (2013) (holding in workers compensation cases that once the claimant shows a right to benefits, the burden shifts to the employer to show an exception barring compensation applies); cf. State v. Estrada-Vital , 302 Kan. 549 , 552, 356 P.3d 1058 (2015) (noting in criminal cases that the burden of proof is on those seeking to invoke an exception to the general rule requiring a search warrant). 2019App. 2d 731 , 751, 298 P.3d 371 (2013) (holding in workers compensation cases that once the claimant shows a right to benefits, the burden shifts to the employer to show an exception barring compensation applies); cf. State v. Estrada-Vital , 302 Kan. 549 , 552, 356 P.3d 1058 (2015) (noting in criminal cases that the burden of proof is on those seeking to invoke an exception to the general rule requiring a search warrant).	1	2019–2019
Messner v. Continental Plastic Containers green kanctapp · 2013 2 sentences 2019Express Co ., 4 S.W.2d 847 [Mo. App. 1928] ); see generally Keiswetter v. State , 304 Kan. 362 , 368, 373 P.3d 803 (2016) (finding in Kansas Tort Claims Act cases that the State has the burden to establish it is immune from liability under an exception to the general statutory rule of liability); Messner v. Continental Plastic Containers , 48 Kan. 2019App. 2d 731 , 751, 298 P.3d 371 (2013) (holding in workers compensation cases that once the claimant shows a right to benefits, the burden shifts to the employer to show an exception barring compensation applies); cf. State v. Estrada-Vital , 302 Kan. 549 , 552, 356 P.3d 1058 (2015) (noting in criminal cases that the burden of proof is on those seeking to invoke an exception to the general rule requiring a search warrant).	1	2019–2019
State v. Raskie green kan · 2012 2 sentences 2015State v. Raskie, 293 Kan. 906, 919 , 269 P.3d 1268 (2012); see State v. Randolph, 297 Kan. 320, 335 , 301 P.3d 300 (2013) (holding that if an appellate court was to overlook die lack of an objection “ ‘because it is necessary to serve die ends of justice or to prevent the denial of [a defendant’s] right to a fair trial, these and other caselaw exceptions would soon swallow the general statutory rule’ of K.S.A. 60-404”); State v. Harris, 293 Kan. 798, 813 , 269 P.3d 820 (2012) (noting disapproval of any past loosening of K.S.A. 60-404 requirement of specific and timely objections). 2015State v. Raskie, 293 Kan. 906, 919 , 269 P.3d 1268 (2012); see State v. Randolph, 297 Kan. 320, 335 , 301 P.3d 300 (2013) (holding that if an appellate court was to overlook die lack of an objection “ ‘because it is necessary to serve die ends of justice or to prevent the denial of [a defendant’s] right to a fair trial, these and other caselaw exceptions would soon swallow the general statutory rule’ of K.S.A. 60-404”); State v. Harris, 293 Kan. 798, 813 , 269 P.3d 820 (2012) (noting disapproval of any past loosening of K.S.A. 60-404 requirement of specific and timely objections).	1	2015–2015
Melendez-Diaz v. Massachusetts green scotus · 2009 2 sentences 2010Additionally, the United States Supreme Court recently declared that the “[t]he defendant always has the burden of raising his Confrontation Clause objection” and noted that “[sjtates are free to adopt procedural rules governing 489 objections.” Melendez-Diaz v. Massachusetts, 557 U.S. 305, 327 , 174 L. 2010Additionally, the United States Supreme Court recently declared that the “[t]he defendant always has the burden of raising his Confrontation Clause objection” and noted that “[sjtates are free to adopt procedural rules governing 489 objections.” Melendez-Diaz v. Massachusetts, 557 U.S. 305, 327 , 174 L.	1	2010–2010
Federal Deposit Insurance v. Enventure V green ca5 · 1996 1 sentence 1998The court reasoned that “Rule 6(a) is a general statutory rule concerning the computation of time” and that the phrase “ ‘beginning on the date’ which provides a specific reference to the beginning of the limitations period” overrides the application of Rule 6(a). 77 F.3d. at 125 .	1	1998–1998
State v. Johnson green kanctapp · 1994 1 sentence 1998Federal Financial contends that the reasoning of the Enventure V. court is flawed and draws our attention to State v. Johnson, 19 Kan.	1	1998–1998
Brown v. Tubbs green kanctapp · 1978 2 sentences 1984Although the general statutory rule in Kansas is that an assignee is not entitled to the benefits of wage garnishment, an exception to this restriction is specifically made for “assignments of support rights to the secretary of social and rehabilitation services made by applicants for or recipients of aid to families with dependent children under subsection (b) of K.S.A. 39-709 .. . .” K.S.A. 60-2310(d); see 60-2310(c)(l); Brown v. Tubbs, 2 Kan. 1984App. 2d 522 , 582 P.2d 1165 (1978).	1	1984–1984

Statutes the citing opinions construe

KS § K.S.A. § 60-404 (18) KS § K.S.A. § 60-261 (7) KS § K.S.A. § 60-455 (6) KS § K.S.A. § 22-3601 (5) KS § K.S.A. § 22-3201 (4) KS § K.S.A. § 22-3423 (4) KS § K.S.A. § 60-2105 (3) KS § K.S.A. § 60-401 (3) KS § K.S.A. § 60-445 (3) KS § K.S.A. § 60-447 (3)

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.

Where else courts name it

CA 22 (1898–2025) KS 21 (1984–2024) WI 10 (1962–2008) OH 7 (2007–2016) MA 7 (1964–2019) GA 7 (1938–2025) NY 5 (1889–2010) IL 5 (1972–2022) TX 4 (2004–2007) UT 3 (1988–1992) OR 3 (1968–2012) IA 3 (1944–1947) MO 3 (1902–1998) WV 3 (1981–2024) MN 3 (1933–2004) AZ 2 (2005–2023) MI 2 (2017–2017) IN 2 (1995–2000) RI 2 (1996–1996) MD 2 (1901–1966) ME 2 (1982–2006)

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.

← Caselaw search · G Cite Topics · Brief Check