reporting violation (Kansas) · Go Syfert
← Kansas issues

reporting violation in Kansas

19 Kansas opinions name it 2 courts 1989–2024 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 (3)

CaseFollowedCited
Palmer v. Browngreen
kan · 1988 · cited in 13 Kansas opinions naming this issue, 1990–2024
2 sentences

2023The only knowledge element set out by the Kansas Supreme Court in Palmer is that "the employer had knowledge of the employee's reporting of such violation prior to discharge of the employee." 242 Kan. at 900 .

2003To establish a retaliatory discharge claim for whistleblowing, a plaintiff has the burden of proving the following elements by clear and convincing evidence: “[A] reasonably prudent person would have concluded the employee’s co-worker or employer was engaged in activities in violation of rules, regulations, or the law pertaining to public health, safety, and the general welfare; the employer had knowledge of the employee’s reporting of such violation prior to discharge of the *590 employee; and the employee was discharged in retaliation for making the report.” Palmer, 242 Kan. at 900 .

213
State v. Robinsongreen
kan · 2015 · cited in 1 Kansas opinions naming this issue, 2022–2022
2 sentences

2022Relying on State v. Robinson, 303 Kan. 11, 121 , 363 P.3d 875 (2015), disapproved of on other grounds by State v. Cheever, 306 Kan. 760 , 402 P.3d 1126 (2017), the State contends that application of the exclusionary rule in such a situation does not "inevitably follow unless the [L]egislature has enacted such compulsory remedy." In Robinson, "members of the Lenexa Police Department (LPD) traveled beyond the Lenexa city limits to conduct warrantless searches and seizures of trash left for collection outside Robinson's Olathe residence," and Robinson argued the evidence derived from the trash pu

2022However, where a search is conducted in violation of state statute only and the statute violated does not vest defendant with an individual right, does not contemplate exclusion of evidence as a remedy, and the violation results in no cognizable injury to defendant's substantial rights, such a remedy is unavailable." 303 Kan. at 122 . 15 The district court in this case is correct that the statute fails to mention any sort of remedy for the failure to follow the reporting requirement.

11
State v. Raschkegreen
kan · 2009 · cited in 1 Kansas opinions naming this issue, 2022–2022
1 sentence

2022See Raschke, 289 Kan. at 921 .

11

Distinguished, questioned or overruled (0)

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

Also cited on this issue (8)

CaseCitedYears
Smith v. Doe green
scotus · 2003
2 sentences

2016The Court found the ‘categories . . . and the corresponding length of the reporting requirement are reasonably related to the danger of recidivism, and this is consistent with the regulatory objective.’ (Emphasis added.) 538 U.S. at 102 .

2016The Court found the “categories . . . and the corresponding length of the reporting requirement are reasonably related to the danger of recidivism, and this is consistent with the regulatory objective.” (Emphasis added.) 538 U.S. at 102 .

22016–2016
United States v. Hershel Dean Williams green
ca10 · 1991
2 sentences

1995Kan. 1990), aff’d 936 F.2d 584 (10th Cir. 1991).

1995Kan. 1990), aff'd 936 F.2d 584 (10th Cir.1991).

21995–1995
Stuart v. Beech Aircraft Corp. green
ksd · 1990
2 sentences

1995See Palmer, 242 Kan. at 900 (holding in a whistle-blowing retaliatory discharge case that an employee has the burden of proving the employer had knowledge of the employee’s reporting of a violation of tire law prior to discharging the employee); Stuart v. Beech Air craft Corp., 753 F. Supp. 317 (D.

1995See Palmer, 242 Kan. at 900 (holding in a whistle-blowing retaliatory discharge case that an employee has the burden of proving the employer had knowledge of the employee's reporting of a violation of the law prior to discharging the employee); Stuart v. Beech Aircraft *31 Corp., 753 F. Supp. 317 (D.

21995–1995
Goodman v. Wesley Medical Center, L.L.C. green
kan · 2003
1 sentence

2024Goodman, 276 Kan. at 589 -90 (citing Palmer, 242 Kan. at 900 ).

12024–2024
State v. Holt green
kan · 2013
1 sentence

2022Here, the reporting requirement of K.S.A. 2020 Supp. 22-3717(k)(3) fixes a time within which law enforcement officer need to submit a written report to a parole officer, and the intention behind doing so appears to be to "'secure order, system, and dispatch of the public business.'" Holt, 298 Kan. at 476 .

12022–2022
National Union Fire Insurance Co. of Pittsburgh, Pa. v. Resolution Trust Corp. green
ksd · 1996
1 sentence

1998The question of whether to extend application of the notice-prejudice rule from notice of loss to proof of loss provisions was neither raised nor considered in the cases cited by the federal district court for the proposition that “Kansas courts have not extended the notice-prejudice rule to cover noncompliance with *742 proof of loss provisions in insurance contracts.” 923 F. Supp. at 1407 .

11998–1998
Larson v. Ruskowitz green
kan · 1993
1 sentence

1994However, the whistle-blowing must have been done out of a good faith concern over the wrongful activity reported rather than from a corrupt motive such as malice, spite, jealousy or personal gain.’ ” Larson, 252 Kan. at 967 .

11994–1994
State v. Greenberg green
kanctapp · 1980
1 sentence

1989In dictum, the court noted that where the reporting requirement is part of a scheme aimed primarily at enforcing the criminal law, the statutes are “invariably stricken down on Fifth Amendment grounds.” 4 Kan.

11989–1989

Where else courts name it

CA 48 (1974–2026) PA 45 (1962–2026) NJ 30 (1961–2025) TX 26 (1977–2016) OH 25 (1997–2026) FL 20 (1990–2024) KS 19 (1989–2024) NY 16 (1978–2026) OR 16 (2007–2026) MI 13 (1990–2023) IL 13 (1978–2026) WA 11 (1983–2022) MO 11 (1976–2024) IN 11 (1996–2023) MA 10 (1981–2023) NM 8 (2013–2016) MD 8 (1993–2013) GA 6 (1982–2007) LA 6 (2006–2020) IA 6 (1993–2020) AZ 5 (1983–2017) KY 5 (2009–2017) VA 5 (2007–2025) DE 5 (2014–2025) TN 4 (2010–2015) NC 4 (2001–2020) NH 4 (1984–2013) WI 4 (1987–2015) AK 4 (1979–1998) CO 3 (2001–2016) ME 3 (2006–2011) SD 3 (1969–1993) MN 3 (1995–2010) CT 3 (2004–2022) NE 2 (1994–1996) AL 2 (1985–2000) ND 2 (2001–2006) MS 2 (2006–2013) DC 2 (1995–2005) WY 2 (2015–2018) RI 2 (1994–2002) NV 2 (2012–2021)

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