80 Kansas opinions name it 2 courts 2000–2026 25 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 |
|---|---|---|
Pierce v. Board of County Commissionersgreen2 sentences2010The exceptions were identified in Pierce v. Board of County Commissioners, 200 Kan. 74, 80-81 , 434 P.2d 858 (1967), and are: (1) The newly asserted claim involves only a question of law arising on proved or admitted facts and is determinative of the case; (2) consideration of the claim is necessary to serve the ends of justice or to prevent die denial of fundamental rights; and (3) the district court is right for the wrong reason. [Defendant] argues that his case falls within the first two Pierce exceptions because the constitutional issue involves a question of law and also relates to a fund 2010The exceptions were identified in Pierce v. Board of County Commissioners, 200 Kan. 74, 80-81 , 434 P.2d 858 (1967), and are: (1) The newly asserted claim involves only a question of law arising on proved or admitted facts and is determinative of the case; (2) consideration of the claim is necessary to serve the ends of justice or to prevent die denial of fundamental rights; and (3) the district court is right for the wrong reason. [Defendant] argues that his case falls within the first two Pierce exceptions because the constitutional issue involves a question of law and also relates to a fund | 6 | 14 |
State v. Graygreen2 sentences2025Huggins, 319 Kan. at 362; State v. Gray, 311 Kan. 164 , 170, 459 P.3d 165, 170 (2020) (declining to reach an unpreserved claim and finding the failure to 11 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"). 2024Although we are under no obligation to review this newly asserted claim, State v. Gray, 311 Kan. 164 , 170, 459 P.3d 165 (2020), we choose to reach the merits of this argument. | 3 | 5 |
State v. Jonesgreen2 sentences2020See also State v. Jones, 302 Kan. 111, 117 , 351 P.3d 1228 (2015). 2020See also State v. Jones, 302 Kan. 111, 117 , 351 P.3d 1228 (2015). | 2 | 2 |
State v. Godfreygreen2 sentences2026But Lunsford has properly noted that we have discretion to consider an issue raised for the first time on appeal when: "'(1) The newly asserted claim involves only a question of law arising on proved or admitted facts and is determinative of the case; (2) consideration of the claim is necessary to serve the ends of justice or to prevent the denial of fundamental rights; or (3) the district court is right for the wrong reason.'" State v. Godfrey, 301 Kan. 1041, 1043 , 350 P.3d 1068 (2015). 2026But Lunsford has properly noted that we have discretion to consider an issue raised for the first time on appeal when: "'(1) The newly asserted claim involves only a question of law arising on proved or admitted facts and is determinative of the case; (2) consideration of the claim is necessary to serve the ends of justice or to prevent the denial of fundamental rights; or (3) the district court is right for the wrong reason.'" State v. Godfrey, 301 Kan. 1041, 1043 , 350 P.3d 1068 (2015). | 1 | 17 |
State v. Williamsgreen2 sentences2020See State v. Williams, 275 Kan. 284, 288 , 64 P.3d 353 (2003). 20 Yet we have recognized three exceptions to this rule: "'[A]ppellate courts may consider constitutional issues raised for the first time on appeal if the issue falls within one of three recognized exceptions: (1) The newly asserted claim involves only a question of law arising on proved or admitted facts and is determinative of the case; (2) consideration of the claim is necessary to serve the ends of justice or to prevent the denial of fundamental rights; or (3) the district court is right for the wrong reason. [Citations omitte 2020See State v. Williams, 275 Kan. 284, 288 , 64 P.3d 353 (2003). 20 Yet we have recognized three exceptions to this rule: "'[A]ppellate courts may consider constitutional issues raised for the first time on appeal if the issue falls within one of three recognized exceptions: (1) The newly asserted claim involves only a question of law arising on proved or admitted facts and is determinative of the case; (2) consideration of the claim is necessary to serve the ends of justice or to prevent the denial of fundamental rights; or (3) the district court is right for the wrong reason. [Citations omitte | 1 | 11 |
State v. Gomezgreen2 sentences2026We agree, if: "(1) The newly asserted claim involves only a question of law arising on proved or admitted facts and is determinative of the case; (2) consideration of the claim is necessary to serve the ends of justice or to prevent the denial of fundamental rights; [or] (3) the 4 district court is right for the wrong reason." State v. Gomez, 290 Kan. 858 , Syl. ¶ 2, 235 P.3d 1203 (2010). 2026We agree, if: "(1) The newly asserted claim involves only a question of law arising on proved or admitted facts and is determinative of the case; (2) consideration of the claim is necessary to serve the ends of justice or to prevent the denial of fundamental rights; [or] (3) the 4 district court is right for the wrong reason." State v. Gomez, 290 Kan. 858 , Syl. ¶ 2, 235 P.3d 1203 (2010). | 1 | 9 |
State v. Robisongreen2 sentences2024State v. Robison, 314 Kan. 245 , 248, 496 P.3d 892 (2021); Gray, 311 Kan. at 170 . 2023State v. Robison, 314 Kan. 245 , 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"). | 1 | 4 |
State v. Andersongreen2 sentences2020State v. Anderson, 294 Kan. 450, 464-65 , 276 P.3d 200 (2012). 2020State v. Anderson, 294 Kan. 450, 464-65 , 276 P.3d 200 (2012). | 1 | 3 |
State v. Conleygreen2 sentences2008See, e.g., State v. Hawkins, 285 Kan. 842, 845 , 176 P.3d 174 (2008); State v. Conley, 270 Kan. 18, 30-31 , 11 P.3d 1147 (2000), cert. denied 532 U.S. 932 (2001); State v. Puckett, 230 Kan. 596, 598-99 , 640 P.2d 1198 (1982); but cf. State v. Snow, 282 Kan. 323, 342-43 , 144 P.3d 729 (2006) (not stating third exception; stating exception as applying to “newly asserted theory that is strictly a question of law and its consideration is necessary to serve the ends of justice”); State v. Williams, 275 Kan. 284, 288 , 64 P.3d 353 (2003) (same); State v. Papen, 274 Kan. 149, 161-62 , 50 P.3d 37 (200 2008See, e.g., State v. Hawkins, 285 Kan. 842, 845 , 176 P.3d 174 (2008); State v. Conley, 270 Kan. 18, 30-31 , 11 P.3d 1147 (2000), cert. denied 532 U.S. 932 (2001); State v. Puckett, 230 Kan. 596, 598-99 , 640 P.2d 1198 (1982); but cf. State v. Snow, 282 Kan. 323, 342-43 , 144 P.3d 729 (2006) (not stating third exception; stating exception as applying to “newly asserted theory that is strictly a question of law and its consideration is necessary to serve the ends of justice”); State v. Williams, 275 Kan. 284, 288 , 64 P.3d 353 (2003) (same); State v. Papen, 274 Kan. 149, 161-62 , 50 P.3d 37 (200 | 1 | 3 |
Kenney v. New Jerseygreen2 sentences2008See, e.g., State v. Hawkins, 285 Kan. 842, 845 , 176 P.3d 174 (2008); State v. Conley, 270 Kan. 18, 30-31 , 11 P.3d 1147 (2000), cert. denied 532 U.S. 932 (2001); State v. Puckett, 230 Kan. 596, 598-99 , 640 P.2d 1198 (1982); but cf. State v. Snow, 282 Kan. 323, 342-43 , 144 P.3d 729 (2006) (not stating third exception; stating exception as applying to “newly asserted theory that is strictly a question of law and its consideration is necessary to serve the ends of justice”); State v. Williams, 275 Kan. 284, 288 , 64 P.3d 353 (2003) (same); State v. Papen, 274 Kan. 149, 161-62 , 50 P.3d 37 (200 2003See State v. Conley, 270 Kan. 18, 30-31 , 11 P.3d 1147 (2000) (citing Pierce v. Board of County Commissioners, 200 Kan. 74, 80-81 , 434 P.2d 858 [1967]), cert. denied 532 U.S. 932 (2001). | 1 | 2 |
State v. Gutierrez-Fuentesgreen1 sentence2026See State v. Gutierrez- Fuentes, 315 Kan. 341 , 347, 508 P.3d 378 (2022). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Mendezgreen1 sentence2026See State v. Mendez, 319 Kan. 718 , 730, 559 P.3d 792 (2024). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Cartergreen2 sentences2024See State v. Carter, 270 Kan. 426 , 14 P.3d 1138 (2000) (reaching a Cronic claim because the record on appeal could enable meaningful review of the claim). 2024See State v. Carter, 270 Kan. 426 , 14 P.3d 1138 (2000) (reaching a Cronic claim because the record on appeal could enable meaningful review of the claim). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Dunngreen2 sentences2020Similarly, this court will not consider constitutional issues raised for the first time on appeal unless one of three recognized exceptions applies: (1) The newly asserted claim involves only a question of law arising on proved or admitted facts and is finally determinative of the case; (2) the claim's consideration is necessary to serve the ends of justice or to prevent the denial of fundamental rights; or (3) the district court's judgment may be upheld on appeal despite its reliance on the wrong ground or reason for its decision. 288 Kan. at 125 ; see State v. Dunn, 304 Kan. 773, 819 , 375 P 2020Similarly, this court will not consider constitutional issues raised for the first time on appeal unless one of three recognized exceptions applies: (1) The newly asserted claim involves only a question of law arising on proved or admitted facts and is finally determinative of the case; (2) the claim's consideration is necessary to serve the ends of justice or to prevent the denial of fundamental rights; or (3) the district court's judgment may be upheld on appeal despite its reliance on the wrong ground or reason for its decision. 288 Kan. at 125 ; see State v. Dunn, 304 Kan. 773, 819 , 375 P | 1 | 1 |
Carroll v. Floridagreen1 sentence2015See State v. Anderson, 294 Kan. 450, 464 , 276 P.3d 200 , cert. denied 133 S. Ct. 529 (2012). | 1 | 1 |
| State v. Hawkinsgreen | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| State v. Snowgreen | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
State v. Dukes
green
2 sentences2024Though the State is correct, we have previously exercised our discretion to review an unpreserved constitutional argument in three circumstances: "(1) The newly asserted claim involves only a question of law arising on proved or admitted facts and is determinative of the case; (2) consideration of the claim is necessary to serve the ends of justice or to prevent the denial of fundamental rights; or (3) the district court is right for the wrong reason." State v. Godfrey, 301 Kan. 1041, 1043 , 350 P.3d 1068 (2015) (quoting State v. Dukes, 290 Kan. 485, 488 , 231 P.3d 558 [2010]). 20 Here, we cho 2024Though the State is correct, we have previously exercised our discretion to review an unpreserved constitutional argument in three circumstances: "(1) The newly asserted claim involves only a question of law arising on proved or admitted facts and is determinative of the case; (2) consideration of the claim is necessary to serve the ends of justice or to prevent the denial of fundamental rights; or (3) the district court is right for the wrong reason." State v. Godfrey, 301 Kan. 1041, 1043 , 350 P.3d 1068 (2015) (quoting State v. Dukes, 290 Kan. 485, 488 , 231 P.3d 558 [2010]). 20 Here, we cho | 7 | 2011–2024 |
State v. Spotts
green
2 sentences2016In contrast to his constitutional argument regarding K.S.A. 2015 Supp. 21-5202, this time he points to two of the recognized exceptions for allowing consideration of a constitutional issue for the first time on appeal: "The newly asserted claim involves only a question of law arising on proved or admitted facts and is determinative of the case"; and "consideration of the claim is necessary to serve the ends of justice or to prevent the denial of fundamental rights." State v. Spotts, 288 Kan. 650, 652 , 206 P.3d 510 (2009); see Godfrey, 301 Kan. at 1043 (requiring parties asserting a constituti 2016In contrast to his constitutional argument regarding K.S.A. 2015 Supp. 21-5202, this time he points to two of the recognized exceptions for allowing consideration of a constitutional issue for the first time on appeal: "The newly asserted claim involves only a question of law arising on proved or admitted facts and is determinative of the case"; and "consideration of the claim is necessary to serve the ends of justice or to prevent the denial of fundamental rights." State v. Spotts, 288 Kan. 650, 652 , 206 P.3d 510 (2009); see Godfrey, 301 Kan. at 1043 (requiring parties asserting a constituti | 5 | 2010–2017 |
State v. Ortega-Cadelan
green
2 sentences2011They are: “(1) The newly asserted claim involves only a question of law arising on proved or admitted facts and is determinative of the case; (2) consideration of the claim is necessary to serve the ends of justice or to prevent the denial of fundamental rights; and (3) the district court is right for the wrong reason.” State v. OrtegaCadelan, 287 Kan. 157, 159 , 194 P.3d 1195 (2008). 2011They are: “(1) The newly asserted claim involves only a question of law arising on proved or admitted facts and is determinative of the case; (2) consideration of the claim is necessary to serve the ends of justice or to prevent the denial of fundamental rights; and (3) the district court is right for the wrong reason.” State v. OrtegaCadelan, 287 Kan. 157, 159 , 194 P.3d 1195 (2008). | 5 | 2010–2011 |
State v. Moody
green
2 sentences2008State v. Moody, 282 Kan. 181, 192 , 144 P.3d 612 (2006); State v. Williams, 275 Kan. 284, 288-89 , 64 P.3d 353 (2003). 2008State v. Moody, 282 Kan. 181, 192 , 144 P.3d 612 (2006); State v. Williams, 275 Kan. 284, 288-89 , 64 P.3d 353 (2003). | 4 | 2007–2008 |
In re Bezek
green
2 sentences2017Robinson acknowledges the lack of preservation but invokes two exceptions: "(1) The newly asserted claim involves only a question of law arising on proved or admitted facts and is determinative of the case," and "(2) consideration of the claim is necessary to serve the ends of justice or to prevent the denial of fundamental rights." State v. Swint, 302 Kan. 326, 335 , 352 P.3d 1014 (2015). 2017We have recognized three exceptions to the general rule: "(1) The newly asserted claim involves only a question of law arising on proved or admitted facts and is determinative of the case; (2) consideration of the claim is necessary to serve the ends of justice or to prevent the denial of fundamental rights; or (3) the party raising the issue asserts that the district court is right for the wrong reason." State v. Swint, 302 Kan. 326, 335 , 352 P.3d 1014 (2015). | 3 | 2017–2017 |
State v. Swint
green
2 sentences2017Robinson acknowledges the lack of preservation but invokes two exceptions: "(1) The newly asserted claim involves only a question of law arising on proved or admitted facts and is determinative of the case," and "(2) consideration of the claim is necessary to serve the ends of justice or to prevent the denial of fundamental rights." State v. Swint, 302 Kan. 326, 335 , 352 P.3d 1014 (2015). 2017We have recognized three exceptions to the general rule: "(1) The newly asserted claim involves only a question of law arising on proved or admitted facts and is determinative of the case; (2) consideration of the claim is necessary to serve the ends of justice or to prevent the denial of fundamental rights; or (3) the party raising the issue asserts that the district court is right for the wrong reason." State v. Swint, 302 Kan. 326, 335 , 352 P.3d 1014 (2015). | 3 | 2017–2017 |
State v. McCullough
green
2 sentences2014State v. McCullough, 293 Kan. 970, 998 , 270 P.3d 1142 (2012). 2014State v. McCullough, 293 Kan. 970, 998 , 270 P.3d 1142 (2012). | 2 | 2013–2014 |
State v. Puckett
green
2 sentences2010Robison too, citing State v. Puckett, 230 Kan. 596 , 640 P.2d 1198 (1982), argued in his brief that his case falls within the first two Pierce exceptions because the constitutional issue involves a question of law and also relates to a fundamental right. 2010Robison too, citing State v. Puckett, 230 Kan. 596 , 640 P.2d 1198 (1982), argued in his brief that his case falls within the first two Pierce exceptions because the constitutional issue involves a question of law and also relates to a fundamental right. | 2 | 2008–2010 |
State v. Allen
green
1 sentence2024State v. Allen, 314 Kan. 280 , 283, 497 P.3d 566 (2021). | 1 | 2024–2024 |
State v. Z.M.
green
1 sentence2024But our Supreme Court has exercised its discretion to review unpreserved constitutional claims like Carrillo's in three circumstances: "'(1) The newly asserted claim involves only a question of law arising on proved or admitted facts and is determinative of the case; (2) consideration of the claim is necessary to serve the ends of justice or to prevent the denial of fundamental rights; or (3) the district court is right for the wrong reason.' [Citations omitted.]" State v. Z.M., 319 Kan. 297 , 312, 555 P.3d 190 (2024). | 1 | 2024–2024 |
State v. Oehlert
green
1 sentence2024"However, this court has recognized three exceptions to the general rule: '(1) The newly asserted claim involves only a question of law arising on proved or admitted facts and is determinative of the case; (2) consideration of the claim is necessary to serve the ends of justice or to prevent the denial of fundamental rights; and (3) the district court is right for the wrong reasons.'" 290 Kan. at 191 . | 1 | 2024–2024 |
143rd Street Investors, L.L.C. v. Board of County Commissioners
green
2 sentences2022However, as with any general rule, there are exceptions to the prohibition, such as when: 9 "'(1) The newly asserted claim involves only a question of law arising on proved or admitted facts and is determinative of the case; (2) consideration of the claim is necessary to serve the ends of justice or to prevent the denial of fundamental rights; and (3) the district court is right for the wrong reason.'" 143rd Street Investors, L.L.C. v. Board of Johnson County Comm'rs, 292 Kan. 690, 706 , 259 P.3d 644 (2011). 2022However, as with any general rule, there are exceptions to the prohibition, such as when: 9 "'(1) The newly asserted claim involves only a question of law arising on proved or admitted facts and is determinative of the case; (2) consideration of the claim is necessary to serve the ends of justice or to prevent the denial of fundamental rights; and (3) the district court is right for the wrong reason.'" 143rd Street Investors, L.L.C. v. Board of Johnson County Comm'rs, 292 Kan. 690, 706 , 259 P.3d 644 (2011). | 1 | 2022–2022 |
Trotter v. State
green
1 sentence2020Similarly, this court will not consider constitutional issues raised for the first time on appeal unless one of three recognized exceptions applies: (1) The newly asserted claim involves only a question of law arising on proved or admitted facts and is finally determinative of the case; (2) the claim's consideration is necessary to serve the ends of justice or to prevent the denial of fundamental rights; or (3) the district court's judgment may be upheld on appeal despite its reliance on the wrong ground or reason for its decision. 288 Kan. at 125 ; see State v. Dunn, 304 Kan. 773, 819 , 375 P | 1 | 2020–2020 |
State v. Tague
green
1 sentence2015Tague, 296 Kan. at 1000 . | 1 | 2015–2015 |
State v. Perez
green
2 sentences2012State v. Perez, 292 Kan. 785, 789 , 261 P.3d 532 (2011). 2012State v. Perez, 292 Kan. 785, 789 , 261 P.3d 532 (2011). | 1 | 2012–2012 |
| State v. Thomas green | 1 | 2010–2010 |
| State v. Papen green | 1 | 2008–2008 |
| State v. Gonzalez green | 1 | 2008–2008 |
| State v. Powell green | 1 | 2008–2008 |
| State v. Schroeder green | 1 | 2006–2006 |
| State v. Shears green | 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.
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.