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.
6 Kansas opinions name it 2 courts 1989–2022 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 |
|---|---|---|
State v. Kleypasyellow2 sentences2022See State v. Kleypas, 272 Kan. 894, 950 , 40 P.3d 139, 194 (2001) (Last antecedent rule "may not be employed to reach a certain result where the language of the statute is plain and 18 unambiguous."); Link, Inc. v. City of Hays, 266 Kan. 648, 654 , 972 P.2d 753 (1999) (noting that the last antecedent rule is "flexible" and should not be applied in a formulaic manner where the subject matter, sense, or meaning require a different construction). 2022See State v. Kleypas, 272 Kan. 894, 950 , 40 P.3d 139, 194 (2001) (Last antecedent rule "may not be employed to reach a certain result where the language of the statute is plain and 18 unambiguous."); Link, Inc. v. City of Hays, 266 Kan. 648, 654 , 972 P.2d 753 (1999) (noting that the last antecedent rule is "flexible" and should not be applied in a formulaic manner where the subject matter, sense, or meaning require a different construction). | 2 | 2 |
Barten v. Turkey Creek Watershed Joint District No. 32green2 sentences2022See Barten v. Turkey Creek Watershed Joint District No. 32, 200 Kan. 489, 504 , 438 P.2d 732 (1968) (Under the last antecedent rule, qualifying words are "ordinarily confined to the last antecedent, or to the words and phrases immediately preceding."). 2022See Barten v. Turkey Creek Watershed Joint District No. 32, 200 Kan. 489, 504 , 438 P.2d 732 (1968) (Under the last antecedent rule, qualifying words are "ordinarily confined to the last antecedent, or to the words and phrases immediately preceding."). | 1 | 3 |
Kansas v. Marshgreen2 sentences2019See State v. Kleypas , 272 Kan. 894 , 950, 40 P.3d 139 (2001) (no application if language plain and unambiguous), cert. denied 537 U.S. 834 (2002), overruled on other grounds by Kansas v. Marsh , 548 U.S. 163 , 126 S. Ct. 2516 , 165 L.Ed. 2d 429 (2006) ; Link, Inc. v. City of Hays , 266 Kan. 648 , 654, 972 P.2d 753 (1999) (flexible application). 2019See State v. Kleypas , 272 Kan. 894 , 950, 40 P.3d 139 (2001) (no application if language plain and unambiguous), cert. denied 537 U.S. 834 (2002), overruled on other grounds by Kansas v. Marsh , 548 U.S. 163 , 126 S. Ct. 2516 , 165 L.Ed. 2d 429 (2006) ; Link, Inc. v. City of Hays , 266 Kan. 648 , 654, 972 P.2d 753 (1999) (flexible application). | 1 | 1 |
Kleypas v. Kansasgreen1 sentence2019See State v. Kleypas , 272 Kan. 894 , 950, 40 P.3d 139 (2001) (no application if language plain and unambiguous), cert. denied 537 U.S. 834 (2002), overruled on other grounds by Kansas v. Marsh , 548 U.S. 163 , 126 S. Ct. 2516 , 165 L.Ed. 2d 429 (2006) ; Link, Inc. v. City of Hays , 266 Kan. 648 , 654, 972 P.2d 753 (1999) (flexible application). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Kansas. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Link, Inc. v. City of Hays
green
2 sentences2022See State v. Kleypas, 272 Kan. 894, 950 , 40 P.3d 139, 194 (2001) (Last antecedent rule "may not be employed to reach a certain result where the language of the statute is plain and 18 unambiguous."); Link, Inc. v. City of Hays, 266 Kan. 648, 654 , 972 P.2d 753 (1999) (noting that the last antecedent rule is "flexible" and should not be applied in a formulaic manner where the subject matter, sense, or meaning require a different construction). 2022See State v. Kleypas, 272 Kan. 894, 950 , 40 P.3d 139, 194 (2001) (Last antecedent rule "may not be employed to reach a certain result where the language of the statute is plain and 18 unambiguous."); Link, Inc. v. City of Hays, 266 Kan. 648, 654 , 972 P.2d 753 (1999) (noting that the last antecedent rule is "flexible" and should not be applied in a formulaic manner where the subject matter, sense, or meaning require a different construction). | 3 | 2017–2022 |
Rosscheart v. School District
neutral
2 sentences1999App. 2d 558, 561-62 , 775 P.2d 675 , rev. denied 245 Kan. 785 (1989) (if application of the last antecedent rule “ would involve an absurdity, do violence to the plain intent of the language, or if the context for other reason requires a deviation from the rule, it will be necessary and proper to look for another antecedent’ ”) (quoting In re Petition of School District of Omaha, 151 Neb. 304, 307-08 , 37 N.W.2d 209 [1949]). 1999App. 2d 558, 561-62 , 775 P.2d 675 , rev. denied 245 Kan. 785 (1989) (if application of the last antecedent rule “ would involve an absurdity, do violence to the plain intent of the language, or if the context for other reason requires a deviation from the rule, it will be necessary and proper to look for another antecedent’ ”) (quoting In re Petition of School District of Omaha, 151 Neb. 304, 307-08 , 37 N.W.2d 209 [1949]). | 2 | 1989–1999 |
Lozano v. Alvarez
green
2 sentences2019The last antecedent rule generally states " 'that "qualifying words are 'ordinarily confined to the last antecedent, or to the words and phrases immediately preceding.' " ' " Lozano v. Alvarez , 306 Kan. 421 , 426, 394 P.3d 862 (2017). 2019The last antecedent rule generally states " 'that "qualifying words are 'ordinarily confined to the last antecedent, or to the words and phrases immediately preceding.' " ' " Lozano v. Alvarez , 306 Kan. 421 , 426, 394 P.3d 862 (2017). | 1 | 2019–2019 |
NEA-Goodland v. Board of Education
green
1 sentence1999App. 2d 558, 561-62 , 775 P.2d 675 , rev. denied 245 Kan. 785 (1989) (if application of the last antecedent rule “ would involve an absurdity, do violence to the plain intent of the language, or if the context for other reason requires a deviation from the rule, it will be necessary and proper to look for another antecedent’ ”) (quoting In re Petition of School District of Omaha, 151 Neb. 304, 307-08 , 37 N.W.2d 209 [1949]). | 1 | 1999–1999 |
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.