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.
11 Kansas opinions name it 2 courts 2010–2020 0 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. Gomezgreen2 sentences2015The Kansas Supreme Court has described two proportionality challenges to sentences which are alleged to be violative of these constitutional provisions: (1) challenges that claim the sentence imposed is grossly disproportionate in light of all the circumstances of a 4 particular case, and (2) "'cases in which the Court implements the proportionality standard by certain categorical restrictions' . . . ." State v. Gomez, 290 Kan. 858, 864 , 235 P.3d 1203 (2010) (quoting Graham, 560 U.S. at 59 ). 2015The Kansas Supreme Court has described two proportionality challenges to sentences which are alleged to be violative of these constitutional provisions: (1) challenges that claim the sentence imposed is grossly disproportionate in light of all the circumstances of a 4 particular case, and (2) "'cases in which the Court implements the proportionality standard by certain categorical restrictions' . . . ." State v. Gomez, 290 Kan. 858, 864 , 235 P.3d 1203 (2010) (quoting Graham, 560 U.S. at 59 ). | 3 | 5 |
State v. Rossgreen2 sentences2020See State v. Ross, 295 Kan. 424, 428 , 284 P.3d 309 (2012). 2020See State v. Ross, 295 Kan. 424, 428 , 284 P.3d 309 (2012). | 2 | 2 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Kansas. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Graham v. Florida
green
2 sentences2015The Kansas Supreme Court has described two proportionality challenges to sentences which are alleged to be violative of these constitutional provisions: (1) challenges that claim the sentence imposed is grossly disproportionate in light of all the circumstances of a 4 particular case, and (2) "'cases in which the Court implements the proportionality standard by certain categorical restrictions' . . . ." State v. Gomez, 290 Kan. 858, 864 , 235 P.3d 1203 (2010) (quoting Graham, 560 U.S. at 59 ). 2014Ed. 2d 825 (2010), the Court divided its prior proportionality decisions into two general classifications: (1) challenges to the length of term-of-years sentences given all the circumstances in a particular case, i.e., case-specific claims; and (2) cases in which the Court implements the proportionality standard by certain categorical restrictions, i.e., categorical claims. 560 U.S. at 59 ; see also Gomez, 290 Kan. at 863-64 (summarizing Graham). | 6 | 2010–2015 |
State v. Dull
green
1 sentence2017The second classification also includes cases "in which the court implements the proportionality standard based on certain categorical restrictions." 302 Kan. at 38 . | 1 | 2017–2017 |
State v. Freeman
green
2 sentences2015Reed's appeal falls under a categorical proportionality challenge because the district court was not called upon to determine factual findings pursuant to State v. Freeman, 223 Kan. 362, 367 , 574 P.2d 950 (1978) (establishing the three-part test used to determine whether sentence is prohibited under § 9 of the Kansas Constitution Bill of Rights). "[A] categorical proportionality analysis under the Eighth Amendment does not require a review of the district court's factual findings. 2015Reed's appeal falls under a categorical proportionality challenge because the district court was not called upon to determine factual findings pursuant to State v. Freeman, 223 Kan. 362, 367 , 574 P.2d 950 (1978) (establishing the three-part test used to determine whether sentence is prohibited under § 9 of the Kansas Constitution Bill of Rights). "[A] categorical proportionality analysis under the Eighth Amendment does not require a review of the district court's factual findings. | 1 | 2015–2015 |
State v. Berriozabal
green
2 sentences2012The second classification comprises cases in which the court implements the proportionality standard by certain categorical restrictions.’ ” State v. Berriozabal, 291 Kan. 568, 592 , 243 P.3d 352 (2010) (quoting Gomez, 290 Kan. 858 , Syl. ¶ 4). 2012The second classification comprises cases in which the court implements the proportionality standard by certain categorical restrictions.’ ” State v. Berriozabal, 291 Kan. 568, 592 , 243 P.3d 352 (2010) (quoting Gomez, 290 Kan. 858 , Syl. ¶ 4). | 1 | 2012–2012 |
State v. Woodard
green
2 sentences2012State v. Woodard, 294 Kan. 717 , Syl. ¶ 2, 280 P.3d 203 (2012). 2012State v. Woodard, 294 Kan. 717 , Syl. ¶ 2, 280 P.3d 203 (2012). | 1 | 2012–2012 |
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.