Already have an account? Sign in instead.
You stay signed in for 30 days on this browser.
Continue with Google Continue with MicrosoftNo account yet? Create a free one.
We sent a six-digit code.
It expires in ten minutes, works once, and only in this browser. Five wrong tries void it. Send another code.
Your account is live and the Cloudflare checks are off for this browser.
15 Kansas opinions name it 2 courts 2003–2024 7 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 |
|---|---|---|
State v. Boettgergreen1 sentence2024Morris argues two of these exceptions apply here. 38 First, he contends his KORA challenge presents solely a legal question that requires "no other factual development." See State v. Boettger, 310 Kan. 800 , 803, 450 P.3d 805 (2019) ("Issues about the constitutionality of a statute present questions of law over which this court has unlimited review."). | 1 | 1 |
303 Creative LLC v. Elenisgreen2 sentences2024In fact, the McMillin panel reasoned that 303 Creative "serves as a compelling reason not to reach the merits of McMillin's KORA challenge" because unlike in these Kansas appeals challenging KORA, the parties in 303 Creative stipulated to several facts that were necessary to address the constitutional arguments presented. 2023 WL 8520701 , at *3; see 303 Creative, 600 U.S. at 582 (listing and applying stipulations). 42 Second, the McMillin panel refused to consider the defendant's unpreserved claim based on 303 Creative because the defendant did "nothing to explain how its holding may apply he 2024In fact, the McMillin panel reasoned that 303 Creative "serves as a compelling reason not to reach the merits of McMillin's KORA challenge" because unlike in these Kansas appeals challenging KORA, the parties in 303 Creative stipulated to several facts that were necessary to address the constitutional arguments presented. 2023 WL 8520701 , at *3; see 303 Creative, 600 U.S. at 582 (listing and applying stipulations). 42 Second, the McMillin panel refused to consider the defendant's unpreserved claim based on 303 Creative because the defendant did "nothing to explain how its holding may apply he | 1 | 1 |
Hodes & Nauser, MDS, P.A. v. Schmidtgreen1 sentence2024See Hodes & Nauser, MDs v. Schmidt, 309 Kan. 610 , 680, 440 P.3d 461 (2019). 25 Because Sears did not challenge the KORA requirement below, that type of fact-finding is not available in the appellate record. | 1 | 1 |
State v. Graygreen1 sentence2023State v. Robison, 314 Kan. 246 , 248, 496 P.3d 892 (2021); see also State v. Gray, 311 Kan. 164 , 170, 459 P.3d 165 (2020) (Declining to reach an unpreserved claim and finding the failure to present the argument to the district court "deprived the trial judge of the opportunity to address the issue in the context of this case and such an analysis would have benefitted our review."). 10 Finding Jones' constitutional claim is not preserved, we decline to exercise our appellate jurisdiction to address his KORA claim for the first time on appeal. | 1 | 1 |
State v. Salarygreen1 sentence2022See Salary, 309 Kan. at 481 (issues not adequately briefed are considered waived or abandoned). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Stollgreen1 sentence2021See State v. Stoll, 312 Kan. 726 , 734, 480 P.3d 158 (2021) (holding defendant lacked standing to challenge strict liability nature of KORA violation when the evidence showed she knew she had a duty to register and she failed to successfully show that she lacked a culpable mental state). | 1 | 1 |
Hunter Health Clinic v. Wichita State Universitygreen2 sentences2021Sierra Club, 298 Kan. at 29 ; Friends of Bethany Place v. City of Topeka, 297 Kan. 1112 , 9 Syl. ¶ 2, 307 P.3d 1255 (2013); see also Hunter Health Clinic v. WSU, 52 Kan. 2021Sierra Club, 298 Kan. at 29 ; Friends of Bethany Place v. City of Topeka, 297 Kan. 1112 , 9 Syl. ¶ 2, 307 P.3d 1255 (2013); see also Hunter Health Clinic v. WSU, 52 Kan. | 1 | 1 |
Staples v. United Statesgreen2 sentences2020We thus agree with Genson that the presumptive penalty for a KORA violation is not necessarily "relatively small.'" Morissette, 342 U.S. at 256 ; see Staples, 511 U.S. at 617 -18 Genson, however, got a relatively small penalty, likely because of his mental health issues—he got a downward departure and probation instead of prison. 2020We thus agree with Genson that the presumptive penalty for a KORA violation is not necessarily "relatively small.'" Morissette, 342 U.S. at 256 ; see Staples, 511 U.S. at 617 -18 Genson, however, got a relatively small penalty, likely because of his mental health issues—he got a downward departure and probation instead of prison. | 1 | 1 |
State v. Genslergreen2 sentences2020See State v. Gensler, 308 Kan. 674 , 677, 423 P.3d 488 (2018) (legislative intent governs statutory interpretation; reliance on plain, unambiguous language "'the best and only safe rule'" for determining intent; only if language is ambiguous does court move to wider examination of canons of statutory construction). 1. 2020See State v. Gensler, 308 Kan. 674 , 677, 423 P.3d 488 (2018) (legislative intent governs statutory interpretation; reliance on plain, unambiguous language "'the best and only safe rule'" for determining intent; only if language is ambiguous does court move to wider examination of canons of statutory construction). 1. | 1 | 1 |
Cheney v. Pooregreen2 sentences2020See Cheney v. Poore, 301 Kan. 120, 125 , 339 P.3d 1220 (2014) (interpretation of statute question of law subject to unlimited appellate review); Thoroughbred Assocs. v. Kansas City Royalty Co., 297 Kan. 1193, 1207 , 308 P.3d 1238 (2013) (appellate court exercises unlimited review over "interpretation and legal effect of 21 written instruments"); Telegram Publishing Co. v. Kansas Dept. of Transportation, 275 Kan. 779, 784 , 69 P.3d 578 (2003) (applying those rules to appellate review of KORA claim). 2020See Cheney v. Poore, 301 Kan. 120, 125 , 339 P.3d 1220 (2014) (interpretation of statute question of law subject to unlimited appellate review); Thoroughbred Assocs. v. Kansas City Royalty Co., 297 Kan. 1193, 1207 , 308 P.3d 1238 (2013) (appellate court exercises unlimited review over "interpretation and legal effect of 21 written instruments"); Telegram Publishing Co. v. Kansas Dept. of Transportation, 275 Kan. 779, 784 , 69 P.3d 578 (2003) (applying those rules to appellate review of KORA claim). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Marinelligreen2 sentences2019In other words, under the plain language of K.S.A. 2017 Supp. 22-4902, neither the fact of notice or its timing are dispositive to whether a person is an 'offender' and, therefore, subject to registration requirements." Marinelli, 307 Kan. at 790-91 (finding the district court's failure to notify defendant of his duty to register at the time of his conviction did not excuse defendant's duty to register under KORA). 2019In other words, under the plain language of K.S.A. 2017 Supp. 22-4902, neither the fact of notice or its timing are dispositive to whether a person is an 'offender' and, therefore, subject to registration requirements." Marinelli, 307 Kan. at 790-91 (finding the district court's failure to notify defendant of his duty to register at the time of his conviction did not excuse defendant's duty to register under KORA). | 1 | 1 |
Doe v. Thompsonred2 sentences2016Likewise, the $20-per-report fee and the felony status of a KORA violation under the 2011 version contributed to the Doe v. Thompson holding that the statutory scheme was punitive in effect or nature as it relates to sex offenders. 304 Kan. at 319-20, 328 . 2016Likewise, the $20-per-report fee and the felony status of a KORA violation under the 2011 version contributed to the Doe v. Thompson holding that the statutory scheme was punitive in effect or nature as it relates to sex offenders. 304 Kan. at 319-20, 328 . | 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. Robison
green
1 sentence2023State v. Robison, 314 Kan. 246 , 248, 496 P.3d 892 (2021); see also State v. Gray, 311 Kan. 164 , 170, 459 P.3d 165 (2020) (Declining to reach an unpreserved claim and finding the failure to present the argument to the district court "deprived the trial judge of the opportunity to address the issue in the context of this case and such an analysis would have benefitted our review."). 10 Finding Jones' constitutional claim is not preserved, we decline to exercise our appellate jurisdiction to address his KORA claim for the first time on appeal. | 1 | 2023–2023 |
State v. Lyon
green
1 sentence2021The State asserts, without discussion or elaboration, the district court properly scored Terrell's KORA violation conviction as a person felony based on the reasoning in Keel; State v. Lyon, 58 Kan. | 1 | 2021–2021 |
Sierra Club v. Moser
green
2 sentences2021Sierra Club, 298 Kan. at 29 ; Friends of Bethany Place v. City of Topeka, 297 Kan. 1112 , 9 Syl. ¶ 2, 307 P.3d 1255 (2013); see also Hunter Health Clinic v. WSU, 52 Kan. 2021Sierra Club, 298 Kan. at 29 ; Friends of Bethany Place v. City of Topeka, 297 Kan. 1112 , 9 Syl. ¶ 2, 307 P.3d 1255 (2013); see also Hunter Health Clinic v. WSU, 52 Kan. | 1 | 2021–2021 |
Friends of Bethany Place, Inc. v. City of Topeka
green
2 sentences2021Sierra Club, 298 Kan. at 29 ; Friends of Bethany Place v. City of Topeka, 297 Kan. 1112 , 9 Syl. ¶ 2, 307 P.3d 1255 (2013); see also Hunter Health Clinic v. WSU, 52 Kan. 2021Sierra Club, 298 Kan. at 29 ; Friends of Bethany Place v. City of Topeka, 297 Kan. 1112 , 9 Syl. ¶ 2, 307 P.3d 1255 (2013); see also Hunter Health Clinic v. WSU, 52 Kan. | 1 | 2021–2021 |
State v. Keel
green
2 sentences2021In denying his motions to correct illegal sentence, the district court held Terrell's 2004 KORA violation conviction was properly scored as a person felony under State v. Keel, 302 Kan. 560 , 357 P.3d 251 (2015). 2021In denying his motions to correct illegal sentence, the district court held Terrell's 2004 KORA violation conviction was properly scored as a person felony under State v. Keel, 302 Kan. 560 , 357 P.3d 251 (2015). | 1 | 2021–2021 |
Rehaif v. United States
green
2 sentences2021The Court held that under the statute, the government had to prove that the defendant knew his status and that he knew he possessed the firearm. 139 S. Ct. at 2200 . 10 A KORA violation is not equivalent to the statute at issue in Rahaif. 2021The Court held that under the statute, the government had to prove that the defendant knew his status and that he knew he possessed the firearm. 139 S. Ct. at 2200 . 10 A KORA violation is not equivalent to the statute at issue in Rahaif. | 1 | 2021–2021 |
Morissette v. United States
green
2 sentences2020We thus agree with Genson that the presumptive penalty for a KORA violation is not necessarily "relatively small.'" Morissette, 342 U.S. at 256 ; see Staples, 511 U.S. at 617 -18 Genson, however, got a relatively small penalty, likely because of his mental health issues—he got a downward departure and probation instead of prison. 2020We thus agree with Genson that the presumptive penalty for a KORA violation is not necessarily "relatively small.'" Morissette, 342 U.S. at 256 ; see Staples, 511 U.S. at 617 -18 Genson, however, got a relatively small penalty, likely because of his mental health issues—he got a downward departure and probation instead of prison. | 1 | 2020–2020 |
Thoroughbred Associates, L.L.C. v. Kansas City Royalty Co., L.L.C.
green
2 sentences2020See Cheney v. Poore, 301 Kan. 120, 125 , 339 P.3d 1220 (2014) (interpretation of statute question of law subject to unlimited appellate review); Thoroughbred Assocs. v. Kansas City Royalty Co., 297 Kan. 1193, 1207 , 308 P.3d 1238 (2013) (appellate court exercises unlimited review over "interpretation and legal effect of 21 written instruments"); Telegram Publishing Co. v. Kansas Dept. of Transportation, 275 Kan. 779, 784 , 69 P.3d 578 (2003) (applying those rules to appellate review of KORA claim). 2020See Cheney v. Poore, 301 Kan. 120, 125 , 339 P.3d 1220 (2014) (interpretation of statute question of law subject to unlimited appellate review); Thoroughbred Assocs. v. Kansas City Royalty Co., 297 Kan. 1193, 1207 , 308 P.3d 1238 (2013) (appellate court exercises unlimited review over "interpretation and legal effect of 21 written instruments"); Telegram Publishing Co. v. Kansas Dept. of Transportation, 275 Kan. 779, 784 , 69 P.3d 578 (2003) (applying those rules to appellate review of KORA claim). | 1 | 2020–2020 |
State v. Plummer
green
2 sentences2020We would then examine whether "there is a 'reasonable probability that the error . . . did affect the outcome of the trial in light of the entire record.'" State v. Plummer, 295 Kan. 156, 168 , 283 P.3d 202 (2012) (quoting State v. Ward, 292 Kan. 541, 569 , 256 P.3d 801 [2011]). 2020We would then examine whether "there is a 'reasonable probability that the error . . . did affect the outcome of the trial in light of the entire record.'" State v. Plummer, 295 Kan. 156, 168 , 283 P.3d 202 (2012) (quoting State v. Ward, 292 Kan. 541, 569 , 256 P.3d 801 [2011]). | 1 | 2020–2020 |
Telegram Publishing Co. v. Kansas Department of Transportation
green
2 sentences2020See Cheney v. Poore, 301 Kan. 120, 125 , 339 P.3d 1220 (2014) (interpretation of statute question of law subject to unlimited appellate review); Thoroughbred Assocs. v. Kansas City Royalty Co., 297 Kan. 1193, 1207 , 308 P.3d 1238 (2013) (appellate court exercises unlimited review over "interpretation and legal effect of 21 written instruments"); Telegram Publishing Co. v. Kansas Dept. of Transportation, 275 Kan. 779, 784 , 69 P.3d 578 (2003) (applying those rules to appellate review of KORA claim). 2020See Cheney v. Poore, 301 Kan. 120, 125 , 339 P.3d 1220 (2014) (interpretation of statute question of law subject to unlimited appellate review); Thoroughbred Assocs. v. Kansas City Royalty Co., 297 Kan. 1193, 1207 , 308 P.3d 1238 (2013) (appellate court exercises unlimited review over "interpretation and legal effect of 21 written instruments"); Telegram Publishing Co. v. Kansas Dept. of Transportation, 275 Kan. 779, 784 , 69 P.3d 578 (2003) (applying those rules to appellate review of KORA claim). | 1 | 2020–2020 |
State v. Ward
green
2 sentences2020We would then examine whether "there is a 'reasonable probability that the error . . . did affect the outcome of the trial in light of the entire record.'" State v. Plummer, 295 Kan. 156, 168 , 283 P.3d 202 (2012) (quoting State v. Ward, 292 Kan. 541, 569 , 256 P.3d 801 [2011]). 2020We would then examine whether "there is a 'reasonable probability that the error . . . did affect the outcome of the trial in light of the entire record.'" State v. Plummer, 295 Kan. 156, 168 , 283 P.3d 202 (2012) (quoting State v. Ward, 292 Kan. 541, 569 , 256 P.3d 801 [2011]). | 1 | 2020–2020 |
State v. Jackson
green
2 sentences2018See K.S.A. 2017 Supp. 22-4903(a) (defining a KORA violation as failure by person defined as "offender" to comply with the Act); K.S.A. 2017 Supp. 22-4906 (providing "duration of registration" for "offender" based on convicted crime); Jackson , 291 Kan. at 37 , 238 P.3d 246 (analogizing "statutorily required imposition of ... registration" to standard probation **791 conditions, characterizing registration as "mandatory" rather than "discretionary," and holding registration requirement could be imposed in a journal entry without being pronounced from the bench as part of sentence). 2018See K.S.A. 2017 Supp. 22-4903(a) (defining a KORA violation as failure by person defined as "offender" to comply with the Act); K.S.A. 2017 Supp. 22-4906 (providing "duration of registration" for "offender" based on convicted crime); Jackson , 291 Kan. at 37 , 238 P.3d 246 (analogizing "statutorily required imposition of ... registration" to standard probation **791 conditions, characterizing registration as "mandatory" rather than "discretionary," and holding registration requirement could be imposed in a journal entry without being pronounced from the bench as part of sentence). | 1 | 2018–2018 |
Wichita Eagle & Beacon Publishing Co. v. Simmons
green
2 sentences2018Wichita Eagle & Beacon Publishing Co. v. Simmons , 274 Kan. 194 , Syl. ¶¶ 3, 50 P.3d 66 (2002) ; Cypress Media, Inc. v. City of Overland Park , 268 Kan. 407 , 416, 997 P.2d 681 (2000). 2018Wichita Eagle & Beacon Publishing Co. v. Simmons , 274 Kan. 194 , Syl. ¶¶ 3, 50 P.3d 66 (2002) ; Cypress Media, Inc. v. City of Overland Park , 268 Kan. 407 , 416, 997 P.2d 681 (2000). | 1 | 2018–2018 |
Cypress Media, Inc. v. City of Overland Park
green
2 sentences2018Wichita Eagle & Beacon Publishing Co. v. Simmons , 274 Kan. 194 , Syl. ¶¶ 3, 50 P.3d 66 (2002) ; Cypress Media, Inc. v. City of Overland Park , 268 Kan. 407 , 416, 997 P.2d 681 (2000). 2018Wichita Eagle & Beacon Publishing Co. v. Simmons , 274 Kan. 194 , Syl. ¶¶ 3, 50 P.3d 66 (2002) ; Cypress Media, Inc. v. City of Overland Park , 268 Kan. 407 , 416, 997 P.2d 681 (2000). | 1 | 2018–2018 |
State v. Bussart-Savaloja
green
1 sentence2015Carver-Allmond responds that Buser nevertheless still has a due process right to a timely direct appeal, citing State v. Bussart-Savaloja, 40 Kan. | 1 | 2015–2015 |
Pierce County v. Guillen
green
2 sentences2003The KORA exception relied upon by KDOT in this case, K.S.A. 45-221(a)(l), states: “(a) Except to the extent disclosure is otherwise required by law, a public agency shall not be required to disclose: (1) Records the disclosure of which is specifically prohibited or restricted by federal law, state statute or rule of the Kansas supreme court or the disclosure of *786 which is prohibited or restricted pursuant to specific authorization of federal law, state statute or rule of the Kansas supreme court to restrict or prohibit disclosure.” The specific federal law relied upon by KDOT as an exceptio 2003The KORA exception relied upon by KDOT in this case, K.S.A. 45-221(a)(l), states: “(a) Except to the extent disclosure is otherwise required by law, a public agency shall not be required to disclose: (1) Records the disclosure of which is specifically prohibited or restricted by federal law, state statute or rule of the Kansas supreme court or the disclosure of *786 which is prohibited or restricted pursuant to specific authorization of federal law, state statute or rule of the Kansas supreme court to restrict or prohibit disclosure.” The specific federal law relied upon by KDOT as an exceptio | 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.