6 Kansas opinions name it 2 courts 2004–2024 3 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 |
|---|---|---|
Coates v. City of Cincinnatigreen2 sentences2024"If there is a bedrock principle underlying the First Amendment, it is that the government may not prohibit the expression of an idea simply because society finds the idea itself offensive or disagreeable." Johnson, 491 U.S. at 414 ; see Coates v. City of Cincinnati, 402 U.S. 611, 615 , 91 S. Ct. 1686 , 29 L. 2024"If there is a bedrock principle underlying the First Amendment, it is that the government may not prohibit the expression of an idea simply because society finds the idea itself offensive or disagreeable." Johnson, 491 U.S. at 414 ; see Coates v. City of Cincinnati, 402 U.S. 611, 615 , 91 S. Ct. 1686 , 29 L. | 1 | 1 |
Fisher v. DeCarvalhogreen2 sentences2021See Fisher v. DeCarvalho, 298 Kan. 482, 500 , 314 P.3d 214 (2013); Cohen v. Board of Trustees of the University of the Dist. of Columbia, 819 F.3d 476 , 482- 83 (D.C. 2021See Fisher v. DeCarvalho, 298 Kan. 482, 500 , 314 P.3d 214 (2013); Cohen v. Board of Trustees of the University of the Dist. of Columbia, 819 F.3d 476 , 482- 83 (D.C. | 1 | 1 |
State ex rel. Dawson v. Holcombgreen2 sentences2020We have long resisted repealing statutes without either express language to that effect or "a later enactment [that] is so repugnant to the provisions of the first act that both cannot be given force and effect." In re City of Wichita, 274 Kan. at 929 ; see also State v. Holcomb, 93 Kan. 424, 425 , 144 P. 266 (1914) ("where the legislature intends to repeal a statute it is done in express terms, and so it is said that 'the presumption is always against the intention to repeal where express terms are not used'"). 2020We have long resisted repealing statutes without either express language to that effect or "a later enactment [that] is so repugnant to the provisions of the first act that both cannot be given force and effect." In re City of Wichita, 274 Kan. at 929 ; see also State v. Holcomb, 93 Kan. 424, 425 , 144 P. 266 (1914) ("where the legislature intends to repeal a statute it is done in express terms, and so it is said that 'the presumption is always against the intention to repeal where express terms are not used'"). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Kansas. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Texas v. Johnson
green
2 sentences2024"If there is a bedrock principle underlying the First Amendment, it is that the government may not prohibit the expression of an idea simply because society finds the idea itself offensive or disagreeable." Johnson, 491 U.S. at 414 ; see Coates v. City of Cincinnati, 402 U.S. 611, 615 , 91 S. Ct. 1686 , 29 L. 2019"If there is a bedrock principle underlying the First Amendment, it is that the government may not prohibit expression of an idea simply because society itself finds the idea itself offensive or disagreeable." Texas v. Johnson, 491 U.S. 397, 414 , 109 S. Ct. 2533 , 105 L. | 2 | 2019–2024 |
State v. Sharkey
green
2 sentences2022State v. Sharkey, 299 Kan. 87, 96 , 322 P.3d 325 (2014). 2022State v. Sharkey, 299 Kan. 87, 96 , 322 P.3d 325 (2014). | 1 | 2022–2022 |
Cohen v. Board of Trustees of the University
green
1 sentence2021See Fisher v. DeCarvalho, 298 Kan. 482, 500 , 314 P.3d 214 (2013); Cohen v. Board of Trustees of the University of the Dist. of Columbia, 819 F.3d 476 , 482- 83 (D.C. | 1 | 2021–2021 |
In Re Tax Appeal of City of Wichita
green
2 sentences2020This runs contrary to a bedrock principle of statutory interpretation that "'[r]epeal by implication is not favored.'" In re City of Wichita, 274 Kan. 915, 929 , 59 P.3d 336 (2002) (quoting State v. Roderick, 259 Kan. 107, 111 , 911 P.2d 159 [1996]). 2020This runs contrary to a bedrock principle of statutory interpretation that "'[r]epeal by implication is not favored.'" In re City of Wichita, 274 Kan. 915, 929 , 59 P.3d 336 (2002) (quoting State v. Roderick, 259 Kan. 107, 111 , 911 P.2d 159 [1996]). | 1 | 2020–2020 |
State v. Roderick
green
2 sentences2020This runs contrary to a bedrock principle of statutory interpretation that "'[r]epeal by implication is not favored.'" In re City of Wichita, 274 Kan. 915, 929 , 59 P.3d 336 (2002) (quoting State v. Roderick, 259 Kan. 107, 111 , 911 P.2d 159 [1996]). 2020This runs contrary to a bedrock principle of statutory interpretation that "'[r]epeal by implication is not favored.'" In re City of Wichita, 274 Kan. 915, 929 , 59 P.3d 336 (2002) (quoting State v. Roderick, 259 Kan. 107, 111 , 911 P.2d 159 [1996]). | 1 | 2020–2020 |
Padilla Ex Rel. Newman v. Bush
green
2 sentences2004Newman v. Bush, 233 F. Supp. 2d 564 (S.D.N.Y. 2002), the bedrock principle of separation of powers in our tripartite form of government was at issue and eloquently explained. 2004Newman v. Bush, 233 F. Supp. 2d 564 (S.D.N.Y. 2002), the bedrock principle of separation of powers in our tripartite form of government was at issue and eloquently explained. | 1 | 2004–2004 |
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.