467 Kansas opinions name it 2 courts 1972–2026 103 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. Reidgreen2 sentences2018To establish relevance, there must be some material or logical connection between the asserted facts and the inference or result they are intended to establish. [Citation omitted]." ' Mooney , 283 Kan. at 620 , 153 P.3d 1252 (quoting State v. Gunby, 282 Kan. 39 , 47, 144 P.3d 647 [2006] ). " '[T]he question of whether evidence is probative is judged under an abuse of discretion standard; materiality is judged under a de novo standard.' Shadden, 290 Kan. at 817 , 235 P.3d 436 (citing State v. Reid, 286 Kan. 494 , 507-09, 186 P.3d 713 [2008] ). 2018To establish relevance, there must be some material or logical connection between the asserted facts and the inference or result they are intended to establish. [Citation omitted]." ' Mooney , 283 Kan. at 620 , 153 P.3d 1252 (quoting State v. Gunby, 282 Kan. 39 , 47, 144 P.3d 647 [2006] ). " '[T]he question of whether evidence is probative is judged under an abuse of discretion standard; materiality is judged under a de novo standard.' Shadden, 290 Kan. at 817 , 235 P.3d 436 (citing State v. Reid, 286 Kan. 494 , 507-09, 186 P.3d 713 [2008] ). | 6 | 21 |
Bellamy v. Stategreen2 sentences2024Ultimately, the district court's conclusions of law and its decision to grant or deny the 60-1507 motion are reviewed using a de novo standard. [Citations omitted.]" Bellamy v. State, 285 Kan. 346, 355 , 172 P.3d 10 (2007). 2024Ultimately, the district court's conclusions of law and its decision to grant or deny the 60-1507 motion are reviewed using a de novo standard. [Citations omitted.]" Bellamy v. State, 285 Kan. 346, 355 , 172 P.3d 10 (2007). | 3 | 16 |
| State v. Sawyergreen | 3 | 3 |
| State Ex Rel. Stovall v. Meneleygreen | 3 | 3 |
| Kansas Judicial Review v. Stoutgreen | 3 | 3 |
| State v. Shumwaygreen | 3 | 3 |
State v. Gunbygreen2 sentences2018To establish relevance, there must be some material or logical connection between the asserted facts and the inference or result they are intended to establish. [Citation omitted]." ' Mooney , 283 Kan. at 620 , 153 P.3d 1252 (quoting State v. Gunby, 282 Kan. 39 , 47, 144 P.3d 647 [2006] ). " '[T]he question of whether evidence is probative is judged under an abuse of discretion standard; materiality is judged under a de novo standard.' Shadden, 290 Kan. at 817 , 235 P.3d 436 (citing State v. Reid, 286 Kan. 494 , 507-09, 186 P.3d 713 [2008] ). 2018To establish relevance, there must be some material or logical connection between the asserted facts and the inference or result they are intended to establish. [Citation omitted]." ' Mooney , 283 Kan. at 620 , 153 P.3d 1252 (quoting State v. Gunby, 282 Kan. 39 , 47, 144 P.3d 647 [2006] ). " '[T]he question of whether evidence is probative is judged under an abuse of discretion standard; materiality is judged under a de novo standard.' Shadden, 290 Kan. at 817 , 235 P.3d 436 (citing State v. Reid, 286 Kan. 494 , 507-09, 186 P.3d 713 [2008] ). | 2 | 12 |
In re the Care & Treatment of Burchgreen2 sentences2025In re Care & Treatment of Burch, 296 Kan. 215, 223 , 291 P.3d 78 (2012). 2022We apply a de novo standard of review when a person committed under the KSVPA appeals a district court's probable cause determination after an annual review hearing. 296 Kan. at 222-23 . | 2 | 10 |
Mooney v. City of Overland Parkgreen2 sentences2018To establish relevance, there must be some material or logical connection between the asserted facts and the inference or result they are intended to establish. [Citation omitted]." ' Mooney , 283 Kan. at 620 , 153 P.3d 1252 (quoting State v. Gunby, 282 Kan. 39 , 47, 144 P.3d 647 [2006] ). " '[T]he question of whether evidence is probative is judged under an abuse of discretion standard; materiality is judged under a de novo standard.' Shadden, 290 Kan. at 817 , 235 P.3d 436 (citing State v. Reid, 286 Kan. 494 , 507-09, 186 P.3d 713 [2008] ). 2012To establish relevance, there must be some material or logical connection between the asserted facts and the inference or result they are intended to establish. [Citation omitted].’ ” Mooney, 283 Kan. at 620 (quoting State v. Gunby, 282 Kan. 39, 47 , 144 P.3d 647 [2006]). *8 The question of whether evidence is probative is judged under an abuse of discretion standard; materiality is judged under a de novo standard. | 2 | 4 |
State v. Vasquezgreen2 sentences2009On appeal, the question of whether evidence is probative is judged under an abuse of discretion standard; materiality is judged under a de novo standard.” State v. Vasquez, 287 Kan. 40 , Syl. ¶ 3, 194 P.3d 563 (2008). *70 See State v. Reid, 286 Kan. 494, 503-09 , 186 P.3d 713 (2008). 2009On appeal, the question of whether evidence is probative is judged under an abuse of discretion standard; materiality is judged under a de novo standard.” State v. Vasquez, 287 Kan. 40 , Syl. ¶ 3, 194 P.3d 563 (2008). *70 See State v. Reid, 286 Kan. 494, 503-09 , 186 P.3d 713 (2008). | 2 | 4 |
| State v. Roedergreen | 2 | 3 |
| State v. DeMarcogreen | 2 | 3 |
| In Re the Care & Treatment of Millergreen | 2 | 3 |
| Holmes v. Stategreen | 2 | 2 |
State v. Woolvertongreen2 sentences2014The appellate court then reviews the ultimate legal conclusion regarding the suppression of evidence using a de novo standard.” State v. Woolverton, 284 Kan. 59, 70 , 159 P.3d 985 (2007). 2014The appellate court then reviews the ultimate legal conclusion regarding the suppression of evidence using a de novo standard.” State v. Woolverton, 284 Kan. 59, 70 , 159 P.3d 985 (2007). | 1 | 28 |
State v. Phinneygreen2 sentences2021The ultimate legal determination of whether those facts fit the exception should be reviewed under a de novo standard." State v. Phinney, 280 Kan. 394, 404 , 122 P.3d 356 (2005). 2021The ultimate legal determination of whether those facts fit the exception should be reviewed under a de novo standard." State v. Phinney, 280 Kan. 394, 404 , 122 P.3d 356 (2005). | 1 | 8 |
State v. Bridgesgreen2 sentences2018The ultimate legal conclusion regarding the suppression of evidence is then reviewed using a de novo standard.' State v. Bridges , 297 Kan. 989 , 1001-02, 306 P.3d 244 (2013). 2018The ultimate legal conclusion regarding the suppression of evidence is then reviewed using a de novo standard.' State v. Bridges , 297 Kan. 989 , 1001-02, 306 P.3d 244 (2013). | 1 | 5 |
State v. WARRIORgreen2 sentences2014The second inquiry employs a de novo standard of review to determine whether, under the totality of those circumstances, a reasonable person would have felt free to terminate the interrogation and disengage from the encounter. 294 Kan. at 497 . 2013The second inquiry employs a de novo standard of review to determine whether, under the totality of those circumstances, a reasonable person would have felt free to terminate tire interrogation and disengage from the encounter.” State v. Warrior, 294 Kan. 484, 497 , 277 P.3d 1111 (2012). | 1 | 4 |
State v. Dukesgreen2 sentences2020Stafford's argument is "subject to a de novo standard of review because he challenges the legal basis of the trial court's admission of evidence, specifically that the evidence was admitted in violation of the Confrontation Clause of the Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution." State v. Miller, 293 Kan. 535, 555 , 264 P.3d 461 (2011) (citing State v. Dukes, 290 Kan. 485, 487 , 231 P.3d 558 [2010]). 2020Stafford's argument is "subject to a de novo standard of review because he challenges the legal basis of the trial court's admission of evidence, specifically that the evidence was admitted in violation of the Confrontation Clause of the Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution." State v. Miller, 293 Kan. 535, 555 , 264 P.3d 461 (2011) (citing State v. Dukes, 290 Kan. 485, 487 , 231 P.3d 558 [2010]). | 1 | 4 |
State v. Jamesgreen2 sentences2013Schultz, 289 Kan. at 340-41 ; State v. James, 276 Kan. 737, 751 , 79 P.3d 169 (2003).” Warrior, 294 Kan. at 497. 2005In State v. James, 276 Kan. at 750, we confirmed our two-step standard for reviewing the issue of whether custody existed at the time a defendant’s statements were made drat he or she later wishes to suppress: “[T]he standard to be applied is that the appellate court reviews the factual underpinnings of a district court’s decision that the defendant was not in custody by a substantial competent evidence standard and the ultimate legal decision drawn from those facts by a de novo standard.” We therefore first determine if the district court’s findings in the instant case were supported by subst | 1 | 4 |
State v. Alvidrezgreen2 sentences2003Our standard of review is stated in State v. Alvidrez, 271 Kan. 143, 145 , 20 P.3d 1264 (2001): *496 "When reviewing a motion to suppress evidence, an appellate court reviews the factual underpinnings of a district court's decision `"by a substantial competent evidence standard and the ultimate legal conclusion drawn from those facts by a de novo standard. 2003Our standard of review is stated in State v. Alvidrez, 271 Kan. 143, 145 , 20 P.3d 1264 (2001): *496 "When reviewing a motion to suppress evidence, an appellate court reviews the factual underpinnings of a district court's decision `"by a substantial competent evidence standard and the ultimate legal conclusion drawn from those facts by a de novo standard. | 1 | 4 |
| Anderson v. Dillard's, Inc.green | 1 | 3 |
| State v. Mooregreen | 1 | 3 |
| Laymon v. Stategreen | 1 | 3 |
| Ornelas v. United Statesgreen | 1 | 3 |
| In Re the Appeal of Colorado Interstate Gas Co.green | 1 | 2 |
| Khalil-Alsalaami v. Stategreen | 1 | 2 |
| State v. Gueingreen | 1 | 2 |
| State v. Elnickigreen | 1 | 2 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Kansas. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
State v. Ackward
green
2 sentences2007When analyzing a district court decision to deny suppression of a confession, we review “the factual underpinnings of the decision by a substantial competent evidence standard and the ultimate legal conclusion by a de novo standard.” We do not “reweigh evidence, pass on the credibility of witnesses, or resolve conflicts in the evidence.” State v. Ackward, 281 Kan. 2 , Syl. ¶ 1, 128 P.3d 382 (2006); State v. Swanigan, 279 Kan. 18 , Syl. ¶ 1, 106 P.3d 39 (2005). 2007When analyzing a district court decision to deny suppression of a confession, we review “the factual underpinnings of the decision by a substantial competent evidence standard and the ultimate legal conclusion by a de novo standard.” We do not “reweigh evidence, pass on the credibility of witnesses, or resolve conflicts in the evidence.” State v. Ackward, 281 Kan. 2 , Syl. ¶ 1, 128 P.3d 382 (2006); State v. Swanigan, 279 Kan. 18 , Syl. ¶ 1, 106 P.3d 39 (2005). | 17 | 2006–2010 |
State v. Shadden
green
2 sentences2020"On appeal, the question of whether evidence is probative is judged under an abuse of discretion standard; materiality is judged under a de novo standard." State v. Shadden, 290 Kan. 803, 817 , 235 P.3d 436 (2010). 2020"On appeal, the question of whether evidence is probative is judged under an abuse of discretion standard; materiality is judged under a de novo standard." State v. Shadden, 290 Kan. 803, 817 , 235 P.3d 436 (2010). | 12 | 2012–2020 |
State v. Evans
green
2 sentences2026State v. Evans, 315 Kan. 211, 218 , 506 P.3d 260 (2022). "'Substantial competent evidence is legal and relevant evidence a reasonable person could accept to support a conclusion.'" State v. Talkington, 301 Kan. 453, 461 , 345 P.3d 258 (2015) (quoting State v. Bird, 298 Kan. 393, 399 , 312 P.3d 1265 [2013]). 2026State v. Evans, 315 Kan. 211, 218 , 506 P.3d 260 (2022). "'Substantial competent evidence is legal and relevant evidence a reasonable person could accept to support a conclusion.'" State v. Talkington, 301 Kan. 453, 461 , 345 P.3d 258 (2015) (quoting State v. Bird, 298 Kan. 393, 399 , 312 P.3d 1265 [2013]). | 8 | 2023–2026 |
State v. Hanke
green
2 sentences2021State v. Hanke, 307 Kan. 823 , 827, 415 P.3d 966 (2018). 2020State v. Hanke, 307 Kan. 823 , 827, 415 P.3d 966 (2018). | 8 | 2018–2021 |
State v. Butler
green
2 sentences2021State v. Butler, 307 Kan. 831, 853 , 416 P.3d 116 (2018). "[To] prevail on a claim of ineffective assistance of trial counsel, a criminal defendant must establish (1) that the performance of defense counsel was deficient under the totality of the circumstances, and (2) prejudice, i.e., that there is a reasonable probability that the jury would have reached a different result absent the deficient performance. 2021State v. Butler, 307 Kan. 831, 853 , 416 P.3d 116 (2018). "[To] prevail on a claim of ineffective assistance of trial counsel, a criminal defendant must establish (1) that the performance of defense counsel was deficient under the totality of the circumstances, and (2) prejudice, i.e., that there is a reasonable probability that the jury would have reached a different result absent the deficient performance. | 8 | 2020–2021 |
State v. Swanigan
green
2 sentences2009Standard of Review When analyzing a trial court's denial of a motion to suppress a defendant's confession, an appellate court reviews "the factual underpinnings of the decision by a substantial competent evidence standard and the ultimate legal conclusion by a de novo standard." An appellate court does not "reweigh evidence, pass on the credibility of witnesses, or resolve conflicts in the evidence." State v. Harris, 284 Kan. 560 , Syl. ¶ 9, 162 P.3d 28 (2007); State v. Swanigan, 279 Kan. 18, 23 , 106 P.3d 39 (2005). 2009Standard of Review When analyzing a trial court's denial of a motion to suppress a defendant's confession, an appellate court reviews "the factual underpinnings of the decision by a substantial competent evidence standard and the ultimate legal conclusion by a de novo standard." An appellate court does not "reweigh evidence, pass on the credibility of witnesses, or resolve conflicts in the evidence." State v. Harris, 284 Kan. 560 , Syl. ¶ 9, 162 P.3d 28 (2007); State v. Swanigan, 279 Kan. 18, 23 , 106 P.3d 39 (2005). | 8 | 2006–2009 |
State v. Alford
green
2 sentences2026State v. Alford, 308 Kan. 1336 , 1338, 429 P.3d 197 (2018). 2025State v. Alford, 308 Kan. 1336 , 1338, 429 P.3d 197 (2018). | 7 | 2021–2026 |
State v. Thompson
green
2 sentences2025"Appellate review of a trial court's determination of whether a reasonable person would feel free to refuse the law enforcement officer's requests or otherwise terminate the encounter consists of two parts: (1) the factual underpinnings are reviewed under a substantial competent evidence standard and (2) the ultimate legal conclusion drawn from those facts, i.e., whether a reasonable person would feel free to refuse the requests or to terminate the encounter, is reviewed under a de novo standard." State v. Thompson, 284 Kan. 763 , Syl. ¶ 10, 166 P.3d 1015 (2007). 2025"Appellate review of a trial court's determination of whether a reasonable person would feel free to refuse the law enforcement officer's requests or otherwise terminate the encounter consists of two parts: (1) the factual underpinnings are reviewed under a substantial competent evidence standard and (2) the ultimate legal conclusion drawn from those facts, i.e., whether a reasonable person would feel free to refuse the requests or to terminate the encounter, is reviewed under a de novo standard." State v. Thompson, 284 Kan. 763 , Syl. ¶ 10, 166 P.3d 1015 (2007). | 7 | 2008–2025 |
State v. Brown
green
2 sentences2020Kansas appellate courts apply "a de novo standard when determining whether the totality of circumstances substantially prejudiced a defendant and denied the defendant a fair trial based on cumulative error." State v. Brown, 298 Kan. 1040, 1056 , 318 P.3d 1005 (2014). 2020Kansas appellate courts apply "a de novo standard when determining whether the totality of circumstances substantially prejudiced a defendant and denied the defendant a fair trial based on cumulative error." State v. Brown, 298 Kan. 1040, 1056 , 318 P.3d 1005 (2014). | 7 | 2015–2023 |
Wachter Management Co. v. Dexter & Chaney, Inc.
green
2 sentences2022We review the district court's decision on such motions using a de novo standard of review. 282 Kan. at 368 . 2021Also, KDOR raised this issue in a motion to dismiss, and this court "review[s] the district court's decision on a motion to dismiss using a de novo standard of review." Wachter Management Co. v. Dexter & Chaney, Inc., 282 Kan. 365, 368 , 144 P.3d 747 (2006). | 7 | 2008–2022 |
State v. Ransom
green
2 sentences2017An appellate court does not weigh evidence to find facts.'" State v. Sprague, 303 Kan. 418, 434 , 362 P.3d 828 (2015) (quoting State v. Ransom, 289 Kan. 373 , Syl. ¶ 1, 212 P.3d 203 [2009]). 2017An appellate court does not weigh evidence to find facts.'" State v. Sprague, 303 Kan. 418, 434 , 362 P.3d 828 (2015) (quoting State v. Ransom, 289 Kan. 373 , Syl. ¶ 1, 212 P.3d 203 [2009]). | 6 | 2010–2017 |
State v. Toothman
green
2 sentences2003Our standard of review is set forth in State v. Toothman, 267 Kan. 412, 416 , 985 P.2d 701 (1999): “An appellate court reviews the factual underpinnings of a district court’s decision ‘by a substantial competent evidence standard and the ultimate legal conclusion drawn from those facts by a de novo standard. 2003Our standard of review is set forth in State v. Toothman, 267 Kan. 412, 416 , 985 P.2d 701 (1999): “An appellate court reviews the factual underpinnings of a district court’s decision ‘by a substantial competent evidence standard and the ultimate legal conclusion drawn from those facts by a de novo standard. | 6 | 2000–2003 |
Stewart v.Ross
green
2 sentences2022State v. Ross, 310 Kan. 216 , 227, 445 P.3d 726 (2019). 2021Cumulative Error We use a de novo standard of review when determining whether "'the totality of circumstances substantially prejudiced a defendant and denied the defendant a fair trial.'" State v. Ross, 310 Kan. 216 , 227, 445 P.3d 726 (2019). | 5 | 2020–2022 |
State v. Cruz
green
2 sentences2021We review potential joinder errors using a three-step process, applying a different standard of review at each step. "'When analyzing an issue of joinder, an appellate court determines which of the three conditions precedent the district court relied on (same or similar character; same act or transaction; or two or more acts or transactions connected together or constituting parts of a common scheme or plan); whether there is substantial competent evidence to support the district court's findings of fact, using a deferential standard; whether the district court properly concluded that a condit 2021We review potential joinder errors using a three-step process, applying a different standard of review at each step. "'When analyzing an issue of joinder, an appellate court determines which of the three conditions precedent the district court relied on (same or similar character; same act or transaction; or two or more acts or transactions connected together or constituting parts of a common scheme or plan); whether there is substantial competent evidence to support the district court's findings of fact, using a deferential standard; whether the district court properly concluded that a condit | 5 | 2014–2021 |
State v. Gill
green
2 sentences2024We review the district court's factual findings from an Ortiz hearing for substantial competent evidence and apply a de novo standard of review to "the ultimate legal determination of whether those facts fit within an Ortiz exception." State v. Gill, 287 Kan. 289, 293 , 196 P.3d 369 (2008). 2024We review the district court's factual findings from an Ortiz hearing for substantial competent evidence and apply a de novo standard of review to "the ultimate legal determination of whether those facts fit within an Ortiz exception." State v. Gill, 287 Kan. 289, 293 , 196 P.3d 369 (2008). | 4 | 2014–2024 |
State v. Dunn
green
2 sentences2020State v. LaPointe, 309 Kan. 299 , 312, 434 P.3d 850 (2019). "'Subject matter jurisdiction is the power of the court to hear and decide a particular type of action.'" State v. Dunn, 304 Kan. 773, 784 , 375 P.3d 332 (2016) (quoting State v. Matzke, 236 Kan. 833, 835 , 696 P.2d 396 [1985]). 2020State v. LaPointe, 309 Kan. 299 , 312, 434 P.3d 850 (2019). "'Subject matter jurisdiction is the power of the court to hear and decide a particular type of action.'" State v. Dunn, 304 Kan. 773, 784 , 375 P.3d 332 (2016) (quoting State v. Matzke, 236 Kan. 833, 835 , 696 P.2d 396 [1985]). | 4 | 2017–2020 |
State v. Martinez
green
2 sentences2018State v. Martinez , 296 Kan. 482 , 485, 293 P.3d 718 (2013). 2018State v. Martinez , 296 Kan. 482 , 485, 293 P.3d 718 (2013). | 4 | 2013–2018 |
| State v. Crudo green | 3 | 2024–2025 |
| State v. LaPointe green | 3 | 2020–2024 |
| Beauclair v. State green | 3 | 2020–2022 |
| State v. Neighbors green | 3 | 2018–2022 |
| State v. Doelz green | 3 | 2020–2022 |
| Tolen v. State green | 3 | 2008–2021 |
| State v. Cofield green | 3 | 2010–2018 |
| State v. Shively green | 3 | 2002–2017 |
| State v. Schultz green | 3 | 2011–2013 |
| State v. Howard green | 3 | 2010–2013 |
| State v. Dixon green | 3 | 2010–2012 |
| Kluin v. American Suzuki Motor Corp. green | 3 | 2006–2012 |
| State v. Henderson green | 3 | 2009–2011 |
| State v. Harris green | 3 | 2007–2011 |
| Robbins v. City of Wichita green | 3 | 2008–2009 |
| State v. Washington green | 3 | 2003–2008 |
| State v. Rupnick green | 3 | 2006–2008 |
| Angle v. Kansas Department of Revenue green | 3 | 1993–2006 |
| In re Brooks green | 2 | 2020–2026 |
| State v. Robinson green | 2 | 2020–2026 |
| State v. Talkington green | 2 | 2020–2026 |
| State v. Harris green | 2 | 2015–2025 |
| Trear v. Chamberlain green | 2 | 2024–2025 |
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.