successful overbreadth challenge in Kansas

2022"A successful overbreadth challenge can thus be made only when (1) the protected activity is a significant part of the law's target, and (2) there exists no satisfactory method of severing that law's constitutional from its unconstitutional applications." State v. Whitesell, 270 Kan. 259 , Syl. ¶ 6, 13 P.3d 887 (2000).

2022"A successful overbreadth challenge can thus be made only when (1) the protected activity is a significant part of the law's target, and (2) there exists no satisfactory method of severing that law's constitutional from its unconstitutional applications." State v. Whitesell, 270 Kan. 259 , Syl. ¶ 6, 13 P.3d 887 (2000).

2026Additionally, even if an overbreadth challenge were available to Wilson under the Second Amendment, a successful overbreadth challenge is "made only when [1] the protected activity is a significant part of the law's target, and [2] there exists no satisfactory method of severing that law's constitutional from its unconstitutional applications." State v. Wilson, 267 Kan. 550, 556-57 , 987 P.2d 1060 (1999).

2026Additionally, even if an overbreadth challenge were available to Wilson under the Second Amendment, a successful overbreadth challenge is "made only when [1] the protected activity is a significant part of the law's target, and [2] there exists no satisfactory method of severing that law's constitutional from its unconstitutional applications." State v. Wilson, 267 Kan. 550, 556-57 , 987 P.2d 1060 (1999).

2011A successful overbreadth challenge can thus be made only when (1) the protected activity is a significant part of the law's target, and (2) there exists no satisfactory method of severing that law's constitutional from its *448 unconstitutional applications.' [ State v. ] Whitesell, 270 Kan. 259 , Syl. ¶ 6[, 13 P.3d 887 (2000)]." Smith v. Martens, 279 Kan. 242, 253 , 106 P.3d 28 (2005).

2011A successful overbreadth challenge can thus be made only when (1) the protected activity is a significant part of the law's target, and (2) there exists no satisfactory method of severing that law's constitutional from its *448 unconstitutional applications.' [ State v. ] Whitesell, 270 Kan. 259 , Syl. ¶ 6[, 13 P.3d 887 (2000)]." Smith v. Martens, 279 Kan. 242, 253 , 106 P.3d 28 (2005).

2024Thus, the court clarified that a successful overbreadth challenge can be made only when "1) the protected activity is a significant part of the law's target, and 2) there exists no satisfactory method of severing the law's constitutional from its unconstitutional applications." 231 Kan. at 533 .

2024Palmgren, 231 Kan. at 533 (citing Tribe, American Constitutional Law § 12-24, 711 [2d ed. 1978]).

2016Dissmeyer, 292 Kan. at 40 -41 (quoting Smith, 279 Kan. at 253 ).

2004App. 2d 703, 717 , 953 P.2d 231 , rev. denied 264 Kan. 821 (1998), set forth the following overbreadth standard: “ ‘An overbroad statute makes conduct punishable which under some circumstances is constitutionally protected from criminal sanctions. [Citation omitted.] A successful overbreadth challenge can thus be made only when (1) the protected activity is a significant part of the law’s target and (2) there exists no satisfactory method of severing that law’s constitutionality from its unconstitutional applications. [Citations omitted.]’ ” The criminal statute, K.S.A. 65-2803(a), in conjunct

2001This gives rise to a standing question whereby the State argues that “a person to whom a statute may constitutionally be applied may not challenge that statute on the ground that it may conceivably be applied unconstitutionally to others in situations not before the court.” New York v. Ferber, 458 U.S. 747, 767 , 73 L.

2001This gives rise to a standing question whereby the State argues that “a person to whom a statute may constitutionally be applied may not challenge that statute on the ground that it may conceivably be applied unconstitutionally to others in situations not before the court.” New York v. Ferber, 458 U.S. 747, 767 , 73 L.

2000A successful overbreadth challenge can dius be made only when 1) the protected activity is a significant part of the law’s target, and 2) diere exists no satisfactory mediod of severing diat law’s constitutional from its unconstitutional applications. [Citation omitted.]” *271 “An overbreadtli challenge will be successful if the challenged statute trenches upon a substantial amount of First Amendment protected conduct in relation to die statute’s plainly legitímate sweep.” Staley, 108 F. Supp. 2d at 786 (referring to Broadrick v. Oklahoma, 413 U.S. 601, 612-15 , 37 L.

2000A successful overbreadth challenge can dius be made only when 1) the protected activity is a significant part of the law’s target, and 2) diere exists no satisfactory mediod of severing diat law’s constitutional from its unconstitutional applications. [Citation omitted.]” *271 “An overbreadtli challenge will be successful if the challenged statute trenches upon a substantial amount of First Amendment protected conduct in relation to die statute’s plainly legitímate sweep.” Staley, 108 F. Supp. 2d at 786 (referring to Broadrick v. Oklahoma, 413 U.S. 601, 612-15 , 37 L.

1998A successful overbreadth challenge can thus be made only when (1) the protected activity is a significant part of the law’s target and (2) there exists no satisfactory method of severing that law’s constitutionality from its unconstitutional applications. [Citations omitted.]” In State v. Neighbors, 21 Kan.

1998App. 2d 824, 826 , 908 P.2d 649 (1995), we said: “A statute is presumed constitutional, and all doubt must be resolved in favor of its validity.