specificity requirement in Kansas

2024And in State v. McCaslin, 291 Kan. 697, 708 , 245 P.3d 1030 (2011), the court noted "there may be some overlap of objections based upon hearsay and confrontation" because "all statements violating the Confrontation Clause are also necessarily hearsay." But the McCaslin court still held "their overlap does not satisfy the specificity requirement of the objection" and reaffirmed Bryant's holding and its rationale. 291 Kan. at 708 .

2024And in State v. McCaslin, 291 Kan. 697, 708 , 245 P.3d 1030 (2011), the court noted "there may be some overlap of objections based upon hearsay and confrontation" because "all statements violating the Confrontation Clause are also necessarily hearsay." But the McCaslin court still held "their overlap does not satisfy the specificity requirement of the objection" and reaffirmed Bryant's holding and its rationale. 291 Kan. at 708 .

2001The University of Kansas court declined “to treat the specificity requirement under K.S.A. 77-614(b) as a jurisdictional rule” and instead adopted the standard of notice pleading found under the general civil code for the review of agency decisions. 20 Kan.

1996The procedures [under the civil code] for obtaining a more definite statement can be used in an action for judicial review of agency actions." 20 Kan.

1997The court found that it was not necessary for AT&T-IS to further elaborate on this argument and that this reference to the Supremacy Clause was sufficient to comply with the specificity requirement. 9 Kan.

1997The court found that it was not necessary for AT&T-IS to further elaborate on this argument and that this reference to the Supremacy Clause was sufficient to comply with the specificity requirement. 9 Kan.

2021Ed. 757 (1925) ('It is enough 25 if the description is such that the officer with a search warrant can, with reasonable effort ascertain and identify the place intended.'). 'The purpose of this requirement is to prevent general searches and to prevent the seizure of an item at the discretion of the officer. [Citations omitted.]' LeFort, 248 Kan. at 337 . 'If the scope of the search exceeds that permitted by the terms of a validly issued warrant or the character of the relevant exception from the warrant requirement, the subsequent seizure is unconstitutional without more.' Horton v. California

2021Ed. 757 (1925) ('It is enough 25 if the description is such that the officer with a search warrant can, with reasonable effort ascertain and identify the place intended.'). 'The purpose of this requirement is to prevent general searches and to prevent the seizure of an item at the discretion of the officer. [Citations omitted.]' LeFort, 248 Kan. at 337 . 'If the scope of the search exceeds that permitted by the terms of a validly issued warrant or the character of the relevant exception from the warrant requirement, the subsequent seizure is unconstitutional without more.' Horton v. California

2021The Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution requires that "no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized." "'To satisfy the specificity requirement of the constitutions the search warrant must describe the premises to be searched with sufficient particularity to permit the executing officer to locate the same from the face of the warrant. [Citations omitted.]' [State v.] LeFort, 248 Kan. [332], 334-35[, 806 P.2d 986 (1991)]; see also Steele v. United Sta

2008Relying on University of Kansas, Kams held that the petitioner’s failure to comply with K.S.A. 77-614(b)(5) and (6) did not deprive the court of jurisdiction of the matter. 22 Kan.

2002In so finding, the court looked to K.S.A. 44-501(g), which states that the Act is to be liberally construed to bring employers and employees within its provisions to provide its protection to both. 27 Kan.

1995Later, this court held that a pleading that lacks the required specificity does not give the district court full discretionary power to dismiss the action: “While a petition alleging libel and slander must set forth the alleged defamatory words, the names of the persons to whom they were published and the time and place of their publication, a petition which fails to do so may not be dismissed without the district court first ordering the plaintiff to plead more specific facts.” (Emphasis added.) Knight v. Neodesha Police Dept., 5 Kan.

1995Although the petition was defective because it did not specifically allege the defamatory words, the court held that the specificity requirement requires a motion for a more definite *357 statement under K.S.A. 60-212(e) to “give it substance and compel compliance.” 221 Kan. at 302 .

1985State v. McClelland, 215 Kan. 81 , 523 P.2d 357 (1974).

1985State v. McClelland, 215 Kan. 81 , 523 P.2d 357 (1974).

1977The statute under which the defendants were convicted satisfied Memoirs but did not meet the specificity requirement of Miller , nor did our judicial precedents satisfy Miller’s demand that the prohibited hardcore sexual conduct be ‘specifically defined by the applicable state law, as written or authoritatively construed.’ 413 U. S. at 24 , 93 S. Ct. at 2615 , 37 L.

1977The statute under which the defendants were convicted satisfied Memoirs but did not meet the specificity requirement of Miller , nor did our judicial precedents satisfy Miller’s demand that the prohibited hardcore sexual conduct be ‘specifically defined by the applicable state law, as written or authoritatively construed.’ 413 U. S. at 24 , 93 S. Ct. at 2615 , 37 L.

1974The parties have cited and discussed several decisions concerning the specificity and scope of execution of a premises warrant. [See e. g., State v. Braun, 209 Kan. 181 , 495 P. 2d 1000 ; State v. Ogden, 210 Kan. 510 , 502 P. 2d 654 ; United States v. Long, 449 F. 2d 288 (8th Cir. 1971); Walker v. United States, 225 F. 2d 447 (5th Cir. 1955).] To satisfy the specificity requirement of the Fourth Amendment, a search warrant must describe the premises to be searched with sufficient particularity to permit the executing officer to locate the same from the face of the warrant.

1974The parties have cited and discussed several decisions concerning the specificity and scope of execution of a premises warrant. [See e. g., State v. Braun, 209 Kan. 181 , 495 P. 2d 1000 ; State v. Ogden, 210 Kan. 510 , 502 P. 2d 654 ; United States v. Long, 449 F. 2d 288 (8th Cir. 1971); Walker v. United States, 225 F. 2d 447 (5th Cir. 1955).] To satisfy the specificity requirement of the Fourth Amendment, a search warrant must describe the premises to be searched with sufficient particularity to permit the executing officer to locate the same from the face of the warrant.

1974The parties have cited and discussed several decisions concerning the specificity and scope of execution of a premises warrant. [See e. g., State v. Braun, 209 Kan. 181 , 495 P. 2d 1000 ; State v. Ogden, 210 Kan. 510 , 502 P. 2d 654 ; United States v. Long, 449 F. 2d 288 (8th Cir. 1971); Walker v. United States, 225 F. 2d 447 (5th Cir. 1955).] To satisfy the specificity requirement of the Fourth Amendment, a search warrant must describe the premises to be searched with sufficient particularity to permit the executing officer to locate the same from the face of the warrant.

1974The parties have cited and discussed several decisions concerning the specificity and scope of execution of a premises warrant. [See e. g., State v. Braun, 209 Kan. 181 , 495 P. 2d 1000 ; State v. Ogden, 210 Kan. 510 , 502 P. 2d 654 ; United States v. Long, 449 F. 2d 288 (8th Cir. 1971); Walker v. United States, 225 F. 2d 447 (5th Cir. 1955).] To satisfy the specificity requirement of the Fourth Amendment, a search warrant must describe the premises to be searched with sufficient particularity to permit the executing officer to locate the same from the face of the warrant.

1974The parties have cited and discussed several decisions concerning the specificity and scope of execution of a premises warrant. [See e. g., State v. Braun, 209 Kan. 181 , 495 P. 2d 1000 ; State v. Ogden, 210 Kan. 510 , 502 P. 2d 654 ; United States v. Long, 449 F. 2d 288 (8th Cir. 1971); Walker v. United States, 225 F. 2d 447 (5th Cir. 1955).] To satisfy the specificity requirement of the Fourth Amendment, a search warrant must describe the premises to be searched with sufficient particularity to permit the executing officer to locate the same from the face of the warrant.

1974The parties have cited and discussed several decisions concerning the specificity and scope of execution of a premises warrant. [See e. g., State v. Braun, 209 Kan. 181 , 495 P. 2d 1000 ; State v. Ogden, 210 Kan. 510 , 502 P. 2d 654 ; United States v. Long, 449 F. 2d 288 (8th Cir. 1971); Walker v. United States, 225 F. 2d 447 (5th Cir. 1955).] To satisfy the specificity requirement of the Fourth Amendment, a search warrant must describe the premises to be searched with sufficient particularity to permit the executing officer to locate the same from the face of the warrant.