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.
9 Kansas opinions name it 2 courts 1989–2026 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 |
|---|---|---|
State v. Godfreygreen2 sentences2017For the first time on appeal, Robinson argues that the aggravated battery statute, K.S.A. 21-3414(a)(1)(B), is unconstitutionally vague because it gives no tangible guidance on what separates simple battery from battery done whereby "great bodily harm, disfigurement or death can be inflicted." However, Robinson's claim is "subject to the general rule that alleged constitutional violations cannot be raised for the first time on appeal." Godfrey, 301 Kan. at 1043 . 2017For the first time on appeal, Robinson argues that the aggravated battery statute, K.S.A. 21-3414(a)(1)(B), is unconstitutionally vague because it gives no tangible guidance on what separates simple battery from battery done whereby "great bodily harm, disfigurement or death can be inflicted." However, Robinson's claim is "subject to the general rule that alleged constitutional violations cannot be raised for the first time on appeal." Godfrey, 301 Kan. at 1043 . | 2 | 2 |
State v. Dunngreen2 sentences2017See State v. Dunn, 304 Kan. 773, 817 , 375 P.3d 332 (2016) ("Ordinarily a party that wants to pursue an issue on appeal must have preserved that issue in the court below."); State v. Godfrey, 301 Kan. 1041, 1043 , 350 P.3d 1068 (2015) ("an exception must be invoked by the party asserting the claim for the first time on appeal"); Supreme Court Rule 6.02(a)(5) (2017 Kan. 2017See State v. Dunn, 304 Kan. 773, 817 , 375 P.3d 332 (2016) ("Ordinarily a party that wants to pursue an issue on appeal must have preserved that issue in the court below."); State v. Godfrey, 301 Kan. 1041, 1043 , 350 P.3d 1068 (2015) ("an exception must be invoked by the party asserting the claim for the first time on appeal"); Supreme Court Rule 6.02(a)(5) (2017 Kan. | 2 | 2 |
State v. Fordgreen1 sentence2026Ed. 2d 824 (1960) (acknowledging "the difficulties of retrospectively determining the petitioner's competency as of more than a year ago"); Ford, 302 Kan. at 466 (recognizing Drope, Pate, and Dusky). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Robinsongreen1 sentence1999This court rejected Robinson’s challenge to the constitutionality of 21-3402(b) and concluded that a rational factfinder could have found him guilty of reckless second-degree murder. 261 Kan. at 877, 881-82 . | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Kansas. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Dusky v. United States
green
2 sentences2026Ed. 2d 815 (1966) (explaining the Court had "previously emphasized the difficulty of retrospectively determining an accused's competence to stand trial" and rejecting a request to order one because "Robinson's hearing would be held six years after the fact [which] aggravates these difficulties"); Dusky v. United States, 362 U.S. 402, 403 , 80 S. Ct. 788 , 4 L. 2026Ed. 2d 815 (1966) (explaining the Court had "previously emphasized the difficulty of retrospectively determining an accused's competence to stand trial" and rejecting a request to order one because "Robinson's hearing would be held six years after the fact [which] aggravates these difficulties"); Dusky v. United States, 362 U.S. 402, 403 , 80 S. Ct. 788 , 4 L. | 1 | 2026–2026 |
Brady v. Maryland
green
2 sentences2019The State acknowledged that under Brady v. Maryland , 373 U.S. 83 , 83 S.Ct. 1194 , 10 L.Ed.2d 215 (1963), and Giglio v. United States , 405 U.S. 150 , 153-55, 92 S.Ct. 763 , 31 L.Ed.2d 104 (1972), the State has a continuing duty to disclose evidence favorable to the defense, even after conviction, if the State knew of that evidence during trial. 2019The State acknowledged that under Brady v. Maryland , 373 U.S. 83 , 83 S.Ct. 1194 , 10 L.Ed.2d 215 (1963), and Giglio v. United States , 405 U.S. 150 , 153-55, 92 S.Ct. 763 , 31 L.Ed.2d 104 (1972), the State has a continuing duty to disclose evidence favorable to the defense, even after conviction, if the State knew of that evidence during trial. | 1 | 2019–2019 |
Giglio v. United States
green
2 sentences2019The State acknowledged that under Brady v. Maryland , 373 U.S. 83 , 83 S.Ct. 1194 , 10 L.Ed.2d 215 (1963), and Giglio v. United States , 405 U.S. 150 , 153-55, 92 S.Ct. 763 , 31 L.Ed.2d 104 (1972), the State has a continuing duty to disclose evidence favorable to the defense, even after conviction, if the State knew of that evidence during trial. 2019The State acknowledged that under Brady v. Maryland , 373 U.S. 83 , 83 S.Ct. 1194 , 10 L.Ed.2d 215 (1963), and Giglio v. United States , 405 U.S. 150 , 153-55, 92 S.Ct. 763 , 31 L.Ed.2d 104 (1972), the State has a continuing duty to disclose evidence favorable to the defense, even after conviction, if the State knew of that evidence during trial. | 1 | 2019–2019 |
State v. Collins
green
2 sentences2017State v. Collins , 303 Kan. 472 , 473-74, 362 P.3d 1098 (2015). 2017State v. Collins , 303 Kan. 472 , 473-74, 362 P.3d 1098 (2015). | 1 | 2017–2017 |
cluster 1749
green
2 sentences2015Moreover, after Robinson's brief was filed, the Abu-Jamal case was vacated and remanded in light of the Supreme Court's opinion in Smith v. Spisak, 558 U.S. 139, 148-49 , 130 S. Ct. 676 , 175 L. 2015Moreover, after Robinson's brief was filed, the Abu-Jamal case was vacated and remanded in light of the Supreme Court's opinion in Smith v. Spisak, 558 U.S. 139, 148-49 , 130 S. Ct. 676 , 175 L. | 1 | 2015–2015 |
State v. Gunby
green
2 sentences2015Cf. State v. McHenry, 276 Kan. 513, 525 , 78 P.3d 403 (2003) (ill wifi, exists where prosecutor expressed indifference to court’s rulings, mocked the defendant, or engaged in repeated acts of mis conduct), disapproved on other grounds by State v. Gunby, 282 Kan. 39 , 144 P.3d 647 (2006); State v. Washington, 275 Kan. 644, 672 , 68 P.3d 134 (2003) (a few comments in lengthy transcript do not show ill will). 2015Cf. State v. McHenry, 276 Kan. 513, 525 , 78 P.3d 403 (2003) (ill wifi, exists where prosecutor expressed indifference to court’s rulings, mocked the defendant, or engaged in repeated acts of mis conduct), disapproved on other grounds by State v. Gunby, 282 Kan. 39 , 144 P.3d 647 (2006); State v. Washington, 275 Kan. 644, 672 , 68 P.3d 134 (2003) (a few comments in lengthy transcript do not show ill will). | 1 | 2015–2015 |
State v. McHenry
green
2 sentences2015Cf. State v. McHenry, 276 Kan. 513, 525 , 78 P.3d 403 (2003) (ill wifi, exists where prosecutor expressed indifference to court’s rulings, mocked the defendant, or engaged in repeated acts of mis conduct), disapproved on other grounds by State v. Gunby, 282 Kan. 39 , 144 P.3d 647 (2006); State v. Washington, 275 Kan. 644, 672 , 68 P.3d 134 (2003) (a few comments in lengthy transcript do not show ill will). 2015Cf. State v. McHenry, 276 Kan. 513, 525 , 78 P.3d 403 (2003) (ill wifi, exists where prosecutor expressed indifference to court’s rulings, mocked the defendant, or engaged in repeated acts of mis conduct), disapproved on other grounds by State v. Gunby, 282 Kan. 39 , 144 P.3d 647 (2006); State v. Washington, 275 Kan. 644, 672 , 68 P.3d 134 (2003) (a few comments in lengthy transcript do not show ill will). | 1 | 2015–2015 |
State v. Wilson
green
2 sentences2015State v. Wilson, 295 Kan. 605, 627 , 289 P.3d 1082 (2012). 2015State v. Wilson, 295 Kan. 605, 627 , 289 P.3d 1082 (2012). | 1 | 2015–2015 |
State v. Bruce
green
2 sentences2015Bruce, 295 Kan. at 1038-39 . 2015Bruce, 295 Kan. at 1038-39 . | 1 | 2015–2015 |
State v. Burnett
green
2 sentences2015We discussed the movant’s duty to make such a proffer in Burnett, 300 Kan. 419 , where defendant requested a continuance in order to prepare a redacted and admissible version of the videotaped recording of his police interview. 2015We discussed the movant's duty to make such a proffer in Burnett, 300 Kan. 419 , where defendant requested a continuance in order to prepare a redacted and admissible version of the videotaped recording of his police interview. | 1 | 2015–2015 |
State v. Washington
green
2 sentences2015Cf. State v. McHenry, 276 Kan. 513, 525 , 78 P.3d 403 (2003) (ill wifi, exists where prosecutor expressed indifference to court’s rulings, mocked the defendant, or engaged in repeated acts of mis conduct), disapproved on other grounds by State v. Gunby, 282 Kan. 39 , 144 P.3d 647 (2006); State v. Washington, 275 Kan. 644, 672 , 68 P.3d 134 (2003) (a few comments in lengthy transcript do not show ill will). 2015Cf. State v. McHenry, 276 Kan. 513, 525 , 78 P.3d 403 (2003) (ill wifi, exists where prosecutor expressed indifference to court’s rulings, mocked the defendant, or engaged in repeated acts of mis conduct), disapproved on other grounds by State v. Gunby, 282 Kan. 39 , 144 P.3d 647 (2006); State v. Washington, 275 Kan. 644, 672 , 68 P.3d 134 (2003) (a few comments in lengthy transcript do not show ill will). | 1 | 2015–2015 |
State v. WARRIOR
green
2 sentences2015State v. Warrior, 294 Kan. 484, 505 , 277 P.3d 1111 (2012). 2. 2015State v. Warrior, 294 Kan. 484, 505 , 277 P.3d 1111 (2012). 2. | 1 | 2015–2015 |
State v. Hawkins
green
2 sentences2010The Court of Appeals pointed out that in State v. Hawkins, 285 Kan. 842 , 176 P.3d 174 (2008), this court established that the district court assesses the application fee when a defendant applies for court-appointed counsel and that determining whether the fee would cause manifest hardship is “a minor extension of the analysis which the district court is already performing when assessing eligibility for court-appointed counsel.” 285 Kan. at 853 . 2010The Court of Appeals pointed out that in State v. Hawkins, 285 Kan. 842 , 176 P.3d 174 (2008), this court established that the district court assesses the application fee when a defendant applies for court-appointed counsel and that determining whether the fee would cause manifest hardship is “a minor extension of the analysis which the district court is already performing when assessing eligibility for court-appointed counsel.” 285 Kan. at 853 . | 1 | 2010–2010 |
State v. Robinson
green
2 sentences1989State v. Robinson, 233 Kan. 384 , 662 P.2d 1275 (1983). 1989State v. Robinson, 233 Kan. 384 , 662 P.2d 1275 (1983). | 1 | 1989–1989 |
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.