8 Kansas opinions name it 2 courts 1894–2024 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 |
|---|---|---|
Alleyne v. United Statesgreen1 sentence2014Ed. 2d 435 (2000), holding that “any fact that increases the mandatory minimum [sentence] is an ‘element’ that must be submitted to tire jury” and proved beyond a reasonable doubt. 133 S. Ct. at 2155, 2158 . | 1 | 1 |
Anderson v. Beech Aircraft Corp.green1 sentence2013See Anderson, 237 Kan. 336 , superseded by statute as stated in Martin, Pringle, 289 Kan. 777 . | 1 | 1 |
Northern Natural Gas Co. v. Martin, Pringle, Oliver, Wallace & Bauer, L.L.P.green1 sentence2013See Anderson, 237 Kan. 336 , superseded by statute as stated in Martin, Pringle, 289 Kan. 777 . | 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. Kackley
green
1 sentence2024This court extended the exception to prosecutions for sexual abuse of children in Kackley. 32 Kan. | 1 | 2024–2024 |
Apprendi v. New Jersey
green
2 sentences2014In Alleyne, the Court extended the rule it announced in Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466, 490 , 120 S. Ct. 2348 , 147 L. 2014In Alleyne, the Court extended the rule it announced in Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466, 490 , 120 S. Ct. 2348 , 147 L. | 1 | 2014–2014 |
State v. Young
green
2 sentences1993State v. Young, 253 Kan. 28, 37 , 852 P.2d 510 (1993). 1993State v. Young, 253 Kan. 28, 37 , 852 P.2d 510 (1993). | 1 | 1993–1993 |
McAdam v. Western Casualty & Surety Co.
neutral
1 sentence1963If the legal contentions, or the controversy as to what the legal controversies are, cannot be determined until after an extended hearing of the evidence and findings of fact, a declaratory judgment action is not proper.” *539 The rule governing the question now before the court was well stated in McAdam v. Western Casualty & Surety Co., 186 Kan. 505 , 351P. 2d 202, where the court stated: "Normally, a declaratory judgment action is not well suited to a case in which there is a controversy regarding how the contentions of the parties arose or what the contentions are. | 1 | 1963–1963 |
Leslie v. Gibson
neutral
2 sentences1925In Leslie v. Gibson, 80 Kan. 504 , 103 Pac. 115 , the same privilege had been extended to a grantee of the defendant. 1925In Leslie v. Gibson, 80 Kan. 504 , 103 Pac. 115 , the same privilege had been extended to a grantee of the defendant. | 1 | 1925–1925 |
Collins v. Martin
neutral
1 sentence1911It is contended that the rule of Collins v. Martin, supra, does not apply here because that case was predicated- on the fact that there was no intention to charge for the things at the time they were furnished while here the court extended the rule and allowed the liability to be determined upon the intention of the parties at the time of the arbitration. | 1 | 1911–1911 |
State v. Folwell
neutral
1 sentence1894(The State v. Folwell, 14 Kas. 105 .) There may be some cause for complaint at the very extended inquiry that was made as to the relations between the defendant and Mrs. Hopper. | 1 | 1894–1894 |
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.