cloaked presumption in Kansas

1988In spite of the well-established rule that a statute comes before the court cloaked in a presumption of constitutionality and that it is her duty by attacking the statute to sustain the burden of proof, Henry v. Bauder, 213 Kan. 751, 753 , 518 P.2d 362 (1974), Clements asks this court to declare the statutory exclusions unconstitutional as (1) a violation of due process and equal protection under the Kansas and United States Constitutions and (2) a violation of Section 18 of the Kansas Bill of Rights.

1988In spite of the well-established rule that a statute comes before the court cloaked in a presumption of constitutionality and that it is her duty by attacking the statute to sustain the burden of proof, Henry v. Bauder, 213 Kan. 751, 753 , 518 P.2d 362 (1974), Clements asks this court to declare the statutory exclusions unconstitutional as (1) a violation of due process and equal protection under the Kansas and United States Constitutions and (2) a violation of Section 18 of the Kansas Bill of Rights.

1984If the classification has some ‘reasonable basis,’ it does not offend the Constitution simply because the classification ‘is not made with mathematical nicety or because in practice it results in some inequality.’ Lindsley v. Natural Carbonic Gas Co., 220 U.S. 61, 78 . . . .” (p. 485.) “ 'A statute comes before the court cloaked in a presumption of constitutionality and it is the duty of the one attacking the statute to sustain the burden of proof.

1982If the classification has some "reasonable basis," it does not offend the Constitution simply because the classification "is not made with mathematical nicety or because in practice it results in some inequality." Lindsley v. Natural Carbonic Gas Co., 220 U.S. 61, 78 ....' (p. 485.) "A statute comes before the court cloaked in a presumption of constitutionality and it is the duty of the one attacking the statute to sustain the burden of proof. ( Henry v. Bauder, 213 Kan. 751, 753 , 518 P.2d 362 ; Tri-State Hotel Co. v. Londerholm, 195 Kan. 748, 760 , 408 P.2d 877 ; Lindsley v. Natural Carbonic

2020Our constitutional analysis begins with the recognition that a challenged statutory framework—like the Kansas sentencing guidelines—"comes before the court cloaked in a presumption of constitutionality." Leiker v. Gafford, 245 Kan. 325, 364 , 778 P.2d 823 (1989).

2020Our constitutional analysis begins with the recognition that a challenged statutory framework—like the Kansas sentencing guidelines—"comes before the court cloaked in a presumption of constitutionality." Leiker v. Gafford, 245 Kan. 325, 364 , 778 P.2d 823 (1989).

1982If the classification has some "reasonable basis," it does not offend the Constitution simply because the classification "is not made with mathematical nicety or because in practice it results in some inequality." Lindsley v. Natural Carbonic Gas Co., 220 U.S. 61, 78 ....' (p. 485.) "A statute comes before the court cloaked in a presumption of constitutionality and it is the duty of the one attacking the statute to sustain the burden of proof. ( Henry v. Bauder, 213 Kan. 751, 753 , 518 P.2d 362 ; Tri-State Hotel Co. v. Londerholm, 195 Kan. 748, 760 , 408 P.2d 877 ; Lindsley v. Natural Carbonic

1981If the classification has some "reasonable basis," it does not offend the Constitution simply because the classification "is not made with mathematical nicety or because in practice it results in some inequality." Lindsley v. Natural Carbonic Gas Co., 220 U.S. 61, 78 ....' (p. 485.) "A statute comes before the court cloaked in a presumption of constitutionality and it is the duty of the one attacking the statute to sustain the burden of proof. ( Henry v. Bauder, 213 Kan. 751, 753 , 518 P.2d 362 ; Tri-State Hotel Co. v. Londerholm, 195 Kan. 748, 760 , 408 P.2d 877 ; Lindsley v. Natural Carbonic

2019If there is any reasonable way to construe that statute as constitutionally valid, this court has the authority and duty to do so." Miller v. Johnson , 295 Kan. 636 , 646-47, 289 P.3d 1098 (2012).

2019If there is any reasonable way to construe that statute as constitutionally valid, this court has the authority and duty to do so." Miller v. Johnson , 295 Kan. 636 , 646-47, 289 P.3d 1098 (2012).

2004“When the constitutionality of a statute is challenged, the statute comes before the court cloaked in a presumption of constitutionality.” State v. Baker, 11 Kan.

2004"When the constitutionality of a statute is challenged, the statute comes before the court cloaked in a presumption of constitutionality." State v. Baker, 11 Kan.

1994In Clements v. United States Fidelity & Guaranty Co., 243 Kan. 124, 127 , 753 P.2d 1274 (1988), this court stated: “The difference between the constitutional concepts of due process and equal protection is that due process emphasizes fairness between the state and the individual dealing with the state, regardless of how other individuals in the same situation are treated, while equal protection emphasizes disparity in treatment by a state between classes of individuals whose situations are arguably indistinguishable.

1994In Clements v. United States Fidelity & Guaranty Co., 243 Kan. 124, 127 , 753 P.2d 1274 (1988), this court stated: “The difference between the constitutional concepts of due process and equal protection is that due process emphasizes fairness between the state and the individual dealing with the state, regardless of how other individuals in the same situation are treated, while equal protection emphasizes disparity in treatment by a state between classes of individuals whose situations are arguably indistinguishable.

1993See Stephenson, 250 Kan. at 774 ; Bair, 248 Kan. at 834 ; Farley v. Engelken, 241 Kan. 663 , Syl. ¶ 2, 740 P.2d 1058 (1987).

1993See Stephenson, 250 Kan. at 774 ; Bair, 248 Kan. at 834 ; Farley v. Engelken, 241 Kan. 663 , Syl. ¶ 2, 740 P.2d 1058 (1987).

1993See Stephenson, 250 Kan. at 774 ; Bair, 248 Kan. at 834 ; Farley v. Engelken, 241 Kan. 663 , Syl. ¶ 2, 740 P.2d 1058 (1987).

1984(Henry v. Bauder, 213 Kan. 751, 753 , 518 P.2d 362 ; Tri-State Hotel Co. v. Londerholm, 195 Kan. 748, 760 , 408 P.2d 877 ; Lindsley v. Natural Carbonic Gas *333 Co., 220 U.S. 61, 78-79 , 55 L.Ed. 369 , 31 S.Ct. 337 .) 223 Kan. at 614, 616 .” Manhattan Buildings Inc., 231 Kan. at 30 .