17 Kansas opinions name it 2 courts 1986–2020 0 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 |
|---|---|---|
Graham v. Floridagreen2 sentences2015In a separate analysis, the panel rejected Funk’s proportionality challenge under tire Eighth Amendment, applying the test set out by the United States Supreme Court in Graham v. Florida, 560 U.S. 48 , 130 S. Ct. 2011 , 176 L. 2015In a separate analysis, the panel rejected Funk’s proportionality challenge under tire Eighth Amendment, applying the test set out by the United States Supreme Court in Graham v. Florida, 560 U.S. 48 , 130 S. Ct. 2011 , 176 L. | 2 | 5 |
Harmelin v. Michigangreen2 sentences2018Justice Scalia and Chief Justice Rehnquist concluded that the original meaning of the Eighth Amendment did not include a proportionality principle. 501 U.S. at 985 , 111 S.Ct. 2680 ; see also Ewing v. California , 538 U.S. 11 , 31, 123 S.Ct. 1179 , 155 L.Ed. 2d 108 (2003) (Scalia, J., concurring in the judgment) ("In my opinion in [ Harmelin ], I concluded that the Eighth Amendment's prohibition of 'cruel and unusual punishments' was aimed at excluding only certain modes of punishment, and was not a 'guarantee against disproportionate sentences.' Out of respect for the principle of stare decis 2018Justice Scalia and Chief Justice Rehnquist concluded that the original meaning of the Eighth Amendment did not include a proportionality principle. 501 U.S. at 985 , 111 S.Ct. 2680 ; see also Ewing v. California , 538 U.S. 11 , 31, 123 S.Ct. 1179 , 155 L.Ed. 2d 108 (2003) (Scalia, J., concurring in the judgment) ("In my opinion in [ Harmelin ], I concluded that the Eighth Amendment's prohibition of 'cruel and unusual punishments' was aimed at excluding only certain modes of punishment, and was not a 'guarantee against disproportionate sentences.' Out of respect for the principle of stare decis | 2 | 4 |
Ewing v. Californiagreen2 sentences2018Justice Scalia and Chief Justice Rehnquist concluded that the original meaning of the Eighth Amendment did not include a proportionality principle. 501 U.S. at 985 , 111 S.Ct. 2680 ; see also Ewing v. California , 538 U.S. 11 , 31, 123 S.Ct. 1179 , 155 L.Ed. 2d 108 (2003) (Scalia, J., concurring in the judgment) ("In my opinion in [ Harmelin ], I concluded that the Eighth Amendment's prohibition of 'cruel and unusual punishments' was aimed at excluding only certain modes of punishment, and was not a 'guarantee against disproportionate sentences.' Out of respect for the principle of stare decis 2018Justice Scalia and Chief Justice Rehnquist concluded that the original meaning of the Eighth Amendment did not include a proportionality principle. 501 U.S. at 985 , 111 S.Ct. 2680 ; see also Ewing v. California , 538 U.S. 11 , 31, 123 S.Ct. 1179 , 155 L.Ed. 2d 108 (2003) (Scalia, J., concurring in the judgment) ("In my opinion in [ Harmelin ], I concluded that the Eighth Amendment's prohibition of 'cruel and unusual punishments' was aimed at excluding only certain modes of punishment, and was not a 'guarantee against disproportionate sentences.' Out of respect for the principle of stare decis | 2 | 2 |
Rummel v. Estellegreen2 sentences2012It did, however, acknowledge that “a proportionality principle” could “come into play in [an] extreme example,” such as criminalizing “overtime parking [as] a felony punishable by fife imprisonment.” 445 U.S. at 274 n.11. 2012Rummel, 445 U.S. at 274 n.11; see Harmelin, 501 U.S. at 1013 (White, J., dissenting) (noting that Rummel, 445 U.S. at 272 , 274 & n.11, “recognized that the Eighth Amendment contains a proportionality requirement. . . [that] would come into play in some extreme, nonfelony cases.”). | 1 | 4 |
Weems v. United Statesgreen2 sentences2018Weems v. United States , 217 U.S. 349 , 30 S.Ct. 544 , 54 L.Ed. 793 (1910). 2018Weems v. United States , 217 U.S. 349 , 30 S.Ct. 544 , 54 L.Ed. 793 (1910). | 1 | 2 |
United States v. Williamsgreen2 sentences2014The first challenges the sentence as disproportionate 'given all the circumstances in a particular case.’ ” United States v. Williams, 636 F.3d 1229, 1232 (9th Cir. 2011) (quoting Graham, 560 U.S. at 59). 2014“The second way to mount a proportionality challenge is to show that an entire class of sentences is unconstitutionally disproportionate given the severity of the sentence, the gravity of the crime, and the type of offender.” 636 F.3d at 1233 . *813 Case-Specific Challenge Our Supreme Court looked to the United States Supreme Court’s decision in Graham in laying the framework for analyzing Eighth Amendment cruel and unusual punishment claims: “In conducting an Eighth Amendment analysis to determine whether a sentence for a term of years is grossly disproportionate for a particular defendant’s | 1 | 1 |
Hutto v. Davisgreen1 sentence1998See, e.g., Weems v. United States, 217 U.S. 349, 371 ; Rummel v. Estelle, 445 U.S. 263, 271-274 , and n. 11; Hutto v. Davis, 454 U.S. 370, 374, and n. 3; Solem v. Helm, 463 U.S. 277 . | 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. Freeman
green
2 sentences2020He argued that the three-pronged proportionality test announced in State v. Freeman, 223 Kan. 362, 367 , 574 P.2d 950 (1978), required the district court to assess the specific facts of his case to determine the constitutionality of his sentence under § 9 of the Kansas Constitution Bill of Rights. 2020He argued that the three-pronged proportionality test announced in State v. Freeman, 223 Kan. 362, 367 , 574 P.2d 950 (1978), required the district court to assess the specific facts of his case to determine the constitutionality of his sentence under § 9 of the Kansas Constitution Bill of Rights. | 8 | 1986–2020 |
State v. Gomez
green
2 sentences2020State v. Gomez, 290 Kan. 858, 867 , 235 P.3d 1203 (2010) (finding a defendant was not entitled to appellate review of claim raised for first time on direct appeal that sentence was cruel and unusual under Kansas Constitution Bill of Rights). 2020State v. Gomez, 290 Kan. 858, 867 , 235 P.3d 1203 (2010) (finding a defendant was not entitled to appellate review of claim raised for first time on direct appeal that sentence was cruel and unusual under Kansas Constitution Bill of Rights). | 3 | 2013–2020 |
State v. McDaniel & Owens
green
2 sentences2018Faced with the implications of Rummel and our recently articulated Freeman factors, we again revisited the proportionality principle in State v. McDaniel & Owens , 228 Kan. 172 , 184, 612 P.2d 1231 (1980). 2018Faced with the implications of Rummel and our recently articulated Freeman factors, we again revisited the proportionality principle in State v. McDaniel & Owens , 228 Kan. 172 , 184, 612 P.2d 1231 (1980). | 3 | 2008–2018 |
Solem v. Helm
red
2 sentences1986The most recent United States Supreme Court case to address the applicability of the proportionality test to a sentence of imprisonment is Solem v. Helm, 463 U.S. 277 , 77 L. 1986The most recent United States Supreme Court case to address the applicability of the proportionality test to a sentence of imprisonment is Solem v. Helm, 463 U.S. 277 , 77 L. | 2 | 1986–1998 |
State v. Seward
green
2 sentences2020The Kansas Supreme Court has acknowledged, however, that the analysis under the Freeman factors "'applies with equal force' to a case-specific Eighth Amendment challenge." State v. Seward, 296 Kan. 979, 990 , 297 P.3d 272 (2013). 2020The Kansas Supreme Court has acknowledged, however, that the analysis under the Freeman factors "'applies with equal force' to a case-specific Eighth Amendment challenge." State v. Seward, 296 Kan. 979, 990 , 297 P.3d 272 (2013). | 1 | 2020–2020 |
State v. Dull
green
2 sentences2020Preservation In State v. Dull, 302 Kan. 32 , 351 P.3d 641 (2015), the court held a proportionality challenge to a sentence's constitutionality raised for the first time on appeal was properly limited to whether the sentence was categorically disproportionate in violation of the Eighth Amendment. 2020Preservation In State v. Dull, 302 Kan. 32 , 351 P.3d 641 (2015), the court held a proportionality challenge to a sentence's constitutionality raised for the first time on appeal was properly limited to whether the sentence was categorically disproportionate in violation of the Eighth Amendment. | 1 | 2020–2020 |
Unitrin, Inc. v. American General Corp.
green
2 sentences2003The court also noted that “final determinations regarding domination are usually made after a full trial.” 651 A.2d at 1375 n.15. *421 The second prong, the proportionality test, requires only that a court examine whether the defensive measure was “draconian, by being either preclusive or coercive” and if it was not draconian, whether it was “within a range of reasonable responses to the threat” posed. 651 A.2d at 1367 . 2003The court also noted that “final determinations regarding domination are usually made after a full trial.” 651 A.2d at 1375 n.15. *421 The second prong, the proportionality test, requires only that a court examine whether the defensive measure was “draconian, by being either preclusive or coercive” and if it was not draconian, whether it was “within a range of reasonable responses to the threat” posed. 651 A.2d at 1367 . | 1 | 2003–2003 |
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.