11 Kansas opinions name it 2 courts 1995–2025 4 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. Ellingtongreen1 sentence2025See State v. Ellington, 314 Kan. 260 , 262, 496 P.3d 536 (2021) (ignorance of the law cannot establish excusable neglect). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Kansas. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Michael H. v. Gerald D.
green
2 sentences1995Justice Scalia cites the following reasons for concluding that a putative father's interest has not been historically protected: The presumption of legitimacy and rationale underlying it, the putative father's lack of power to assert parental rights over a child born during a woman's marriage to another man, and the lack of standing of a putative father to claim paternity. 491 U.S. at 124-126 . 1995Justice Scalia cites the following reasons for concluding that a putative father’s interest has not been historically protected: The presumption of legitimacy and rationale underlying it, the putative father’s lack of power to assert parental rights over a child bom during a woman’s marriage to another man, and the lack of standing of a putative father to claim paternity. 491 U.S. at 124-126 . | 2 | 1995–1995 |
Stanley v. Illinois
green
2 sentences1995Under the Due Process Clause that advantage is insufficient to justify refusing a father a hearing when the issue at stake is die dismemberment of his family.” 405 U.S. at 656-58 . 1995Under the Due Process Clause that advantage is insufficient to justify refusing a father a hearing when the issue at stake is the dismemberment of his family." 405 U.S. at 656-58 . | 2 | 1995–1995 |
In the Interest of J.D.C.
green
1 sentence2024Analysis "The fundamental requirement of due process is the opportunity to be heard at a meaningful time and in a meaningful manner." In re J.D.C., 284 Kan. 155, 166 , 159 P.3d 974 (2007). | 1 | 2024–2024 |
In Re JDC
green
1 sentence2024Analysis "The fundamental requirement of due process is the opportunity to be heard at a meaningful time and in a meaningful manner." In re J.D.C., 284 Kan. 155, 166 , 159 P.3d 974 (2007). | 1 | 2024–2024 |
State v. Spencer Gifts, LLC
green
2 sentences2022State v. Spencer Gifts, 304 Kan. 755 , Syl. ¶ 4, 374 P.3d 680 (2016). 2022State v. Spencer Gifts, 304 Kan. 755 , Syl. ¶ 4, 374 P.3d 680 (2016). | 1 | 2022–2022 |
In Re MEB
neutral
1 sentence2022App. 2d 687, 691 , 29 P.3d 471 (2001), likely controls this question, he suggests that this case was wrongly decided. 5 But Father's analysis on this point is scant and undeveloped. | 1 | 2022–2022 |
In the Interest of A.A.
green
1 sentence2020In re A.A., 38 Kan. | 1 | 2020–2020 |
In the Interest of N.U.
green
2 sentences2018This court agreed with the State that it could not address Father's claim without a transcript of the related hearing. 52 Kan. 2018App. 2d at 566 -67 , 369 P.3d 984 . | 1 | 2018–2018 |
Etter v. Etter
green
1 sentence2002Our research has shown that no court, when faced with similar facts and the same section of UIFSA, has adopted this reasoning and reached that result.” 18 P.3d at 1089-90 . | 1 | 2002–2002 |
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.