60 Kansas opinions name it 2 courts 2013–2026 45 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 |
|---|---|---|
In re E.L.green2 sentences2025"A district court abuses its discretion if no reasonable person would agree with the district court, or the court premised its decision on a factual or legal error." In re E.L., 61 Kan. 2025"A district court abuses its discretion if no reasonable person would agree with the district court, or the court premised its decision on a factual or legal error." In re E.L., 61 Kan. | 2 | 10 |
State v. Browngreen2 sentences2021State v. Brown, 51 Kan. 2021State v. Brown, 51 Kan. | 2 | 4 |
State v. Adamsgreen2 sentences2025But we review a district court's decision to exclude evidence based on the third- party evidence rule for abuse of discretion based on the "'totality of facts and circumstances in a given case.'" State v. Tahah, 293 Kan. 267, 274 , 262 P.3d 1045 (2011) (quoting State v. Adams, 280 Kan. 494, 505 , 124 P.3d 19 [2005]). 2025But we review a district court's decision to exclude evidence based on the third- party evidence rule for abuse of discretion based on the "'totality of facts and circumstances in a given case.'" State v. Tahah, 293 Kan. 267, 274 , 262 P.3d 1045 (2011) (quoting State v. Adams, 280 Kan. 494, 505 , 124 P.3d 19 [2005]). | 1 | 1 |
In re Spradlinggreen1 sentence2025See In re Spradling, 315 Kan. 552 , 590, 509 P.3d 483 (2022). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Jollygreen2 sentences2024See State v. Jolly, 301 Kan. 313, 325 , 342 P.3d 935 (2015). 2024See State v. Jolly, 301 Kan. 313, 325 , 342 P.3d 935 (2015). | 1 | 1 |
Wiles v. American Family Life Assurance Co.green2 sentences2024See Wiles v. American Family Life Assurance Co., 302 Kan. 66, 74 , 350 P.3d 1071 (2015). 2024See Wiles v. American Family Life Assurance Co., 302 Kan. 66, 74 , 350 P.3d 1071 (2015). | 1 | 1 |
State v. McMullengreen2 sentences2019See State v. McMullen , 290 Kan. 1 , 10, 221 P.3d 92 (2009) (holding that there was no abuse of discretion in imposing consecutive sentences for two counts of off-grid sexual offenses). 2019See State v. McMullen , 290 Kan. 1 , 10, 221 P.3d 92 (2009) (holding that there was no abuse of discretion in imposing consecutive sentences for two counts of off-grid sexual offenses). | 1 | 1 |
Garetson Brothers v. American Warrior, Inc.green2 sentences2019See Garetson Brothers, 51 Kan. 2019See Garetson Brothers , 51 Kan. | 1 | 1 |
Critchfield Physical Therapy v. Taranto Group, Inc.green2 sentences2014See Critchfield Physical Therapy v. The Taranto Group, Inc., 293 Kan. 285, 292 , 263 P.3d 767 (2011). 2014See Critchfield Physical Therapy v. The Taranto Group, Inc., 293 Kan. 285, 292 , 263 P.3d 767 (2011). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Kansas. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
In re Interest of R.S., P.S., and A.S. line
green
2 sentences2024A district court abuses its discretion if no reasonable person would 22 agree with the district court, or the court premised its decision on a factual or legal error. 50 Kan. 2022A district court exceeds the latitude it is afforded and abuses its discretion if no reasonable person could agree with its decision or if its conclusion was based on a factual or legal error. 50 Kan. | 16 | 2020–2024 |
State v. Butler
green
2 sentences2026"A district court abuses its discretion if no reasonable person could agree with its decision or if its exercise of discretion is founded on a factual or legal error." State v. Butler, 315 Kan. 18 , Syl. ¶ 1, 503 P.3d 239 (2022). 2026"A district court abuses its discretion if no reasonable person could agree with its decision or if its exercise of discretion is founded on a factual or legal error." State v. Butler, 315 Kan. 18 , Syl. ¶ 1, 503 P.3d 239 (2022). | 9 | 2024–2026 |
State v. McCullough
green
2 sentences2020State v. McCullough, 293 Kan. 970, 980-81 , 270 P.3d 1142 (2012). 2020State v. McCullough, 293 Kan. 970, 980-81 , 270 P.3d 1142 (2012). | 3 | 2015–2020 |
State v. Ingham
green
2 sentences2025State v. Ingham, 308 Kan. 1466 , 1469, 430 P.3d 931 (2018). 2021State v. Ingham, 308 Kan. 1466 , 1469, 430 P.3d 931 (2018). | 2 | 2021–2025 |
State v. Thomas
green
2 sentences2022The appellate court's "standard of review is well-established: a district court abuses its discretion if no reasonable person could agree with its decision or if its exercise 21 of discretion is founded on a factual or legal error." Butler, 315 Kan. at 21 (citing State v. Thomas, 307 Kan. 733, 739 , 415 P.3d 430 [2018]). 2022The appellate court's "standard of review is well-established: a district court abuses its discretion if no reasonable person could agree with its decision or if its exercise 21 of discretion is founded on a factual or legal error." Butler, 315 Kan. at 21 (citing State v. Thomas, 307 Kan. 733, 739 , 415 P.3d 430 [2018]). | 2 | 2022–2022 |
In re Estate of Einsel
green
2 sentences2022Einsel v. Einsel, 304 Kan. 567 , Syl. ¶ 1, 374 P.3d 612 (2016); In re Marriage of Johnson, 50 Kan. 2022A court abuses its discretion when it acts in a way that no reasonable court would under the circumstances or bases its decision on a factual or legal error. 304 Kan. 567 , Syl. ¶ 1. | 2 | 2022–2022 |
State v. Mosher
green
2 sentences2018State v. Mosher , 299 Kan. 1 , 3, 319 P.3d 1253 (2014). 2018State v. Mosher , 299 Kan. 1 , 3, 319 P.3d 1253 (2014). | 2 | 2018–2018 |
State v. Gumfory
green
2 sentences2018State v. McCullough , 293 Kan. 970 , 980-81, 270 P.3d 1142 (2012) ; State v. Gumfory , 281 Kan. 1168 , Syl. ¶ 1, 135 P.3d 1191 (2006). 2018State v. McCullough , 293 Kan. 970 , 980-81, 270 P.3d 1142 (2012) ; State v. Gumfory , 281 Kan. 1168 , Syl. ¶ 1, 135 P.3d 1191 (2006). | 2 | 2015–2018 |
State v. Tahah
green
2 sentences2025But we review a district court's decision to exclude evidence based on the third- party evidence rule for abuse of discretion based on the "'totality of facts and circumstances in a given case.'" State v. Tahah, 293 Kan. 267, 274 , 262 P.3d 1045 (2011) (quoting State v. Adams, 280 Kan. 494, 505 , 124 P.3d 19 [2005]). 2025But we review a district court's decision to exclude evidence based on the third- party evidence rule for abuse of discretion based on the "'totality of facts and circumstances in a given case.'" State v. Tahah, 293 Kan. 267, 274 , 262 P.3d 1045 (2011) (quoting State v. Adams, 280 Kan. 494, 505 , 124 P.3d 19 [2005]). | 1 | 2025–2025 |
In Re the Marriage of Johnson
green
1 sentence2022Einsel v. Einsel, 304 Kan. 567 , Syl. ¶ 1, 374 P.3d 612 (2016); In re Marriage of Johnson, 50 Kan. | 1 | 2022–2022 |
Reverse Mortgage Solutions, Inc. v. Goldwyn
green
1 sentence2020A court abuses its discretion if no reasonable person would agree with its decision or the decision is based on a factual or legal error. 56 Kan. | 1 | 2020–2020 |
Garcia v. Ball
green
1 sentence2019So we set it aside only if the district court abused its discretion, meaning either that its decision was unreasonable or based on a factual or legal error. 303 Kan. at 566 . | 1 | 2019–2019 |
Bingham v. United States
green
1 sentence2013State v. Ward, 292 Kan. 541, 550 , 256 P.3d 801 (2011), cert. denied 132 S. Ct. 1594 (2012). | 1 | 2013–2013 |
State v. Ward
green
2 sentences2013State v. Ward, 292 Kan. 541, 550 , 256 P.3d 801 (2011), cert. denied 132 S. Ct. 1594 (2012). 2013State v. Ward, 292 Kan. 541, 550 , 256 P.3d 801 (2011), cert. denied 132 S. Ct. 1594 (2012). | 1 | 2013–2013 |
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.