9 Kansas opinions name it 2 courts 2001–2022 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 |
|---|---|---|
Smith v. Doegreen2 sentences2016See Smith v. Doe, 538 U.S. 84, 92 , 123 S. Ct. 1140 , 155 L. 2016See Smith v. Doe, 538 U.S. 84, 92 , 123 S. Ct. 1140 , 155 L. | 1 | 1 |
Linkletter v. Walkerred2 sentences2001“Employing the retroactivity standard of Linkletter v. Walker, 381 U.S. 618, 636 [, 14 L. 2001“Employing the retroactivity standard of Linkletter v. Walker, 381 U.S. 618, 636 [, 14 L. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Kansas. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
State v. Thomas
green
2 sentences2017App. 2d 15, 24 , 383 P.3d 152 (2016), rev. denied April 19, 2017, this court stated that "the court's holding in Dickey [I] is not a 'change in the law' under that analysis, but rather an application of the constitutional rule announced in Apprendi and clarified by Descamps. 14 [Citations omitted.] Accordingly, the date Apprendi was decided is the relevant date for purposes of the retroactivity analysis." See also State v. Sartin, No. 115,172, 2017 WL 462696 , at *2 (Kan. 2017App. 2d 15, 24 , 383 P.3d 152 (2016), rev. denied April 19, 2017, this court stated that "the court's holding in Dickey [I] is not a 'change in the law' under that analysis, but rather an application of the constitutional rule announced in Apprendi and clarified by Descamps. 14 [Citations omitted.] Accordingly, the date Apprendi was decided is the relevant date for purposes of the retroactivity analysis." See also State v. Sartin, No. 115,172, 2017 WL 462696 , at *2 (Kan. | 2 | 2017–2017 |
State v. Gould
green
2 sentences2016State v. Gould, 271 Kan. 394 , 23 P.3d 801 (2001). 2016State v. Gould, 271 Kan. 394 , 23 P.3d 801 (2001). | 2 | 2016–2016 |
United States v. Gonzalez
green
2 sentences2013First, he claims that Gant and Henning require suppression based on the doctrine of retroactivity, citing United States v. Gonzales, 578 F.3d 1130 (9th Cir. 2009). 2013Carlton first argues that Gant and Henning require suppression based on the doctrine of retroactivity, citing United States v. Gonzales, 578 F.3d 1130 ( 9th Cir. 2009). | 2 | 2013–2013 |
State v. Patton
green
1 sentence2022As for the second element—the amendment's disadvantage to Beeson—the Kansas Supreme Court recently provided guidance in State v. Patton, 315 Kan. ___ , 503 P.3d 1022 (2022). | 1 | 2022–2022 |
Teague v. Lane
green
1 sentence2001Ed. 2d 601 , 85 S. Ct. 1731 ] (1965), the Court concluded that the rule *870 announced in Batson should not be applied retroactively on collateral review of convictions that became final before Batson was announced.” 489 U.S. at 295 . | 1 | 2001–2001 |
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.