10 Kansas opinions name it 2 courts 1986–2024 1 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 |
|---|---|---|
Thornburgh v. Abbottgreen2 sentences2004Ed. 2d 459 , 109 S. Ct. 1874 (1989) (district court stated its standard of review required the Bureau of Prisons to articulate a relationship between its regulations and practices and legitimate penological objectives; Court held that standard was sufficiently close to the Turner standard to permit reliance on the district court’s findings). 2004Ed. 2d 459 , 109 S. Ct. 1874 (1989) (district court stated its standard of review required the Bureau of Prisons to articulate a relationship between its regulations and practices and legitimate penological objectives; Court held that standard was sufficiently close to the Turner standard to permit reliance on the district court’s findings). | 1 | 2 |
Patterson v. Cowley County, Kansasgreen2 sentences2024Although Turner failed to previously attack the City's reliance on Patterson v. Cowley County, Kansas, 307 Kan. 616 , 413 P.3d 432 (2018), this court may address Turner's claim on appeal that the district court misapplied this precedent. 2024Although Turner failed to previously attack the City's reliance on Patterson v. Cowley County, Kansas, 307 Kan. 616 , 413 P.3d 432 (2018), this court may address Turner's claim on appeal that the district court misapplied this precedent. | 1 | 1 |
Rivera v. Rogersgreen2 sentences2014See, e.g., Pesci v. Budz, 730 F.3d 1291, 1296-97 (11th Cir. 2013) (applying modified four-part Turner test to claim of unreasonable censorship of newsletter within the sexually violent predator unit); Rivera v. Rogers, 224 Fed. 2014See, e.g., Pesci v. Budz, 730 F.3d 1291, 1296-97 (11th Cir. 2013) (applying modified four-part Turner test to claim of unreasonable censorship of newsletter within the sexually violent predator unit); Rivera v. Rogers, 224 Fed. | 1 | 1 |
James R. Pesci v. Tim Budzgreen2 sentences2014See, e.g., Pesci v. Budz, 730 F.3d 1291, 1296-97 (11th Cir. 2013) (applying modified four-part Turner test to claim of unreasonable censorship of newsletter within the sexually violent predator unit); Rivera v. Rogers, 224 Fed. 2014See, e.g., Pesci v. Budz, 730 F.3d 1291, 1296-97 (11th Cir. 2013) (applying modified four-part Turner test to claim of unreasonable censorship of newsletter within the sexually violent predator unit); Rivera v. Rogers, 224 Fed. | 1 | 1 |
Jacklovich v. Simmonsgreen1 sentence2008The four factors are (1) whether a valid and rational connection exists between the regulation and a legitimate governmental interest, (2) whether an alternative means of exercising the constitutional right at issue remains available to inmates, (3) the impact of accommodation of the asserted right upon guards, other inmates, and the allocation of prison resources, and (4) the absence of ready alternatives to the course of action taken in the regulation. 482 U.S. at 89-91 ; see also Rice, 278 Kan. at 321 (citing Turner factors); Jacklovich v. Simmons, 392 F.3d 420, 426 (10th Cir. 2004) (same). | 1 | 1 |
Rice v. Stategreen1 sentence2008The four factors are (1) whether a valid and rational connection exists between the regulation and a legitimate governmental interest, (2) whether an alternative means of exercising the constitutional right at issue remains available to inmates, (3) the impact of accommodation of the asserted right upon guards, other inmates, and the allocation of prison resources, and (4) the absence of ready alternatives to the course of action taken in the regulation. 482 U.S. at 89-91 ; see also Rice, 278 Kan. at 321 (citing Turner factors); Jacklovich v. Simmons, 392 F.3d 420, 426 (10th Cir. 2004) (same). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Kansas. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Jack E. Miller v. Central Chinchilla Group, Inc.
green
2 sentences1991The Turner test was applied in Miller v. Central Chinchilla Group, Inc., 494 F.2d 414 [8th Cir. 1974].” 239 Kan. at 620 . 1991The Turner test was applied in Miller v. Central Chinchilla Group, Inc., 494 F.2d 414 [8th Cir. 1974].” 239 Kan. at 620 . | 2 | 1986–1991 |
Carpenter v. Johnson
green
2 sentences2024See Patterson, 307 Kan. at 633 ; Carpenter v. Johnson, 231 Kan. 783, 786 , 649 P.2d 400 (1982). 2024See Patterson, 307 Kan. at 633 ; Carpenter v. Johnson, 231 Kan. 783, 786 , 649 P.2d 400 (1982). | 1 | 2024–2024 |
Aaron K. Marsh v. Florida Dept of Corrections
green
2 sentences2014Fla. 2008) (unpublished opinion) (applying Turner test to claim of violation of right to free exercise of religion), aff'd 330 Fed. 2014Fla. 2008) (unpublished opinion) (applying Turner test to claim of violation of right to free exercise of religion), aff'd 330 Fed. | 1 | 2014–2014 |
Turner v. Safley
green
1 sentence2008The four factors are (1) whether a valid and rational connection exists between the regulation and a legitimate governmental interest, (2) whether an alternative means of exercising the constitutional right at issue remains available to inmates, (3) the impact of accommodation of the asserted right upon guards, other inmates, and the allocation of prison resources, and (4) the absence of ready alternatives to the course of action taken in the regulation. 482 U.S. at 89-91 ; see also Rice, 278 Kan. at 321 (citing Turner factors); Jacklovich v. Simmons, 392 F.3d 420, 426 (10th Cir. 2004) (same). | 1 | 2008–2008 |
State v. Turner
green
1 sentence1995The district court commented that, if Prince deliberately lied or intentionally misled a federal magistrate, he could be prosecuted under state law and subjected to an internal affairs investigation.” 19 Kan. | 1 | 1995–1995 |
State v. Crawford
green
2 sentences1994The State, however, contends that State v. Crawford, 250 Kan. 174 , 824 P.2d 951 (1992), is controlling despite the Turner rule. 1994The State, however, contends that State v. Crawford, 250 Kan. 174 , 824 P.2d 951 (1992), is controlling despite the Turner rule. | 1 | 1994–1994 |
Activator Supply Co. v. Wurth
green
2 sentences1991The Turner test was applied in Miller v. Central Chinchilla Group, Inc., 494 F.2d 414 [8th Cir. 1974].” 239 Kan. at 620 . 1991The Turner test was applied in Miller v. Central Chinchilla Group, Inc., 494 F.2d 414 [8th Cir. 1974].” 239 Kan. at 620 . | 1 | 1991–1991 |
Heery v. Reed
neutral
2 sentences1986In the first, Heery v. Reed, 80 Kan. 380 , 102 Pac. 846 (1909), Reed sought to recover against the decedent’s estate for services Reed had performed for the decedent during his lifetime. 1986In the first, Heery v. Reed, 80 Kan. 380 , 102 Pac. 846 (1909), Reed sought to recover against the decedent’s estate for services Reed had performed for the decedent during his lifetime. | 1 | 1986–1986 |
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.