preponderance of the evidence standard in Kansas

46 Kansas opinions name it 3 courts 1993–2026 10 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.

Followed or applied (15)

Case	Followed	Cited
State v. Johnsongreen kan · 2007 · cited in 3 Kansas opinions naming this issue, 2008–2010 2 sentences 2010See, e.g., State v. Johnson, 284 Kan. 18, 22-23 , 159 P.3d 161 (2007), cert. denied 552 U.S. 1104 (2008) (“judicial fact finding utilizing a preponderance of the evidence standard to increase the mandatory minimum sentence does not run afoul of the jury trial guarantee”); see also State v. Vasquez, 287 Kan. 40, 61 , 194 P.3d 563 (2008) (preponderance); State v. Warledo, 286 Kan. 927, 954-55 , 190 P.3d 937 (2008) (preponderance). 2010See, e.g., State v. Johnson, 284 Kan. 18, 22-23 , 159 P.3d 161 (2007), cert. denied 552 U.S. 1104 (2008) (“judicial fact finding utilizing a preponderance of the evidence standard to increase the mandatory minimum sentence does not run afoul of the jury trial guarantee”); see also State v. Vasquez, 287 Kan. 40, 61 , 194 P.3d 563 (2008) (preponderance); State v. Warledo, 286 Kan. 927, 954-55 , 190 P.3d 937 (2008) (preponderance).	2	3
Summage v. United Statesgreen scotus · 2008 · cited in 3 Kansas opinions naming this issue, 2008–2010 2 sentences 2010See, e.g., State v. Johnson, 284 Kan. 18, 22-23 , 159 P.3d 161 (2007), cert. denied 552 U.S. 1104 , 128 S.Ct. 874 , 169 L.Ed.2d 737 (2008) ("judicial fact finding utilizing a preponderance of the evidence standard to increase the mandatory minimum sentence does not run afoul of the jury trial guarantee"); see also State v. Vasquez, 287 Kan. 40, 61 , 194 P.3d 563 (2008) (preponderance); State v. Warledo, 286 Kan. 927, 954-55 , 190 P.3d 937 (2008) (preponderance). 2010See, e.g., State v. Johnson, 284 Kan. 18, 22-23 , 159 P.3d 161 (2007), cert. denied 552 U.S. 1104 (2008) (“judicial fact finding utilizing a preponderance of the evidence standard to increase the mandatory minimum sentence does not run afoul of the jury trial guarantee”); see also State v. Vasquez, 287 Kan. 40, 61 , 194 P.3d 563 (2008) (preponderance); State v. Warledo, 286 Kan. 927, 954-55 , 190 P.3d 937 (2008) (preponderance).	2	3
State v. Vasquezgreen kan · 2008 · cited in 2 Kansas opinions naming this issue, 2010–2010 2 sentences 2010See, e.g., State v. Johnson, 284 Kan. 18, 22-23 , 159 P.3d 161 (2007), cert. denied 552 U.S. 1104 (2008) (“judicial fact finding utilizing a preponderance of the evidence standard to increase the mandatory minimum sentence does not run afoul of the jury trial guarantee”); see also State v. Vasquez, 287 Kan. 40, 61 , 194 P.3d 563 (2008) (preponderance); State v. Warledo, 286 Kan. 927, 954-55 , 190 P.3d 937 (2008) (preponderance). 2010See, e.g., State v. Johnson, 284 Kan. 18, 22-23 , 159 P.3d 161 (2007), cert. denied 552 U.S. 1104 (2008) (“judicial fact finding utilizing a preponderance of the evidence standard to increase the mandatory minimum sentence does not run afoul of the jury trial guarantee”); see also State v. Vasquez, 287 Kan. 40, 61 , 194 P.3d 563 (2008) (preponderance); State v. Warledo, 286 Kan. 927, 954-55 , 190 P.3d 937 (2008) (preponderance).	2	2
McMillan v. Pennsylvaniared scotus · 1986 · cited in 2 Kansas opinions naming this issue, 2007–2008 2 sentences 2008See, e.g., McMillan v. Pennsylvania, 477 U.S. 79 , 106 S.Ct. 2411 , 91 L.Ed.2d 67 (1986). 2008See, e.g., McMillan v. Pennsylvania, 477 U.S. 79 , 106 S.Ct. 2411 , 91 L.Ed.2d 67 (1986).	2	2
Long v. Mattinglygreen tennctapp · 1990 · cited in 1 Kansas opinions naming this issue, 2020–2020 1 sentence 2020Applying this standard of review, in Long v. Mattingly, then- Judge Koch offered “a three-step review of a trial court’s adjustment of a jury’s damage award.” Long v. Mattingly, 797 S.W.2d 889, 896 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1990).	1	1
Estate of Stephensgreen cal · 2002 · cited in 1 Kansas opinions naming this issue, 2019–2019 2 sentences 2019The Stephens court elected to impose a preponderance of the evidence standard on the rebuttal of an undue influence claim. 28 Cal. 4th at 677 . 2019A dissent, however, contended that this standard is too lax and allows too much room for dishonest practices. 28 Cal. 4th at 681 (Kennard, J., dissenting).	1	1
State v. Spaingreen kan · 1998 · cited in 1 Kansas opinions naming this issue, 2014–2014 2 sentences 2014See State v. Spain, 263 Kan. 708, 714 , 953 P.2d 1004 (1998) (concluding that although K.S.A. 21-4635(c) specifies no particular standard of proof, statute implicitly requires judge to apply preponderance of evidence standard when finding aggravating circumstances); see also State v. Nelson, 291 Kan. 475, 487-88 , 243 P.3d 343 (2010) (clarifying standard of proof for finding aggravating circumstances is preponderance of evidence rather than beyond reasonable doubt). 2014See State v. Spain, 263 Kan. 708, 714 , 953 P.2d 1004 (1998) (concluding that although K.S.A. 21-4635(c) specifies no particular standard of proof, statute implicitly requires judge to apply preponderance of evidence standard when finding aggravating circumstances); see also State v. Nelson, 291 Kan. 475, 487-88 , 243 P.3d 343 (2010) (clarifying standard of proof for finding aggravating circumstances is preponderance of evidence rather than beyond reasonable doubt).	1	1
State v. Nelsongreen kan · 2010 · cited in 1 Kansas opinions naming this issue, 2014–2014 2 sentences 2014See State v. Spain, 263 Kan. 708, 714 , 953 P.2d 1004 (1998) (concluding that although K.S.A. 21-4635(c) specifies no particular standard of proof, statute implicitly requires judge to apply preponderance of evidence standard when finding aggravating circumstances); see also State v. Nelson, 291 Kan. 475, 487-88 , 243 P.3d 343 (2010) (clarifying standard of proof for finding aggravating circumstances is preponderance of evidence rather than beyond reasonable doubt). 2014See State v. Spain, 263 Kan. 708, 714 , 953 P.2d 1004 (1998) (concluding that although K.S.A. 21-4635(c) specifies no particular standard of proof, statute implicitly requires judge to apply preponderance of evidence standard when finding aggravating circumstances); see also State v. Nelson, 291 Kan. 475, 487-88 , 243 P.3d 343 (2010) (clarifying standard of proof for finding aggravating circumstances is preponderance of evidence rather than beyond reasonable doubt).	1	1
In Re Estate of Ewersgreen kan · 1971 · cited in 1 Kansas opinions naming this issue, 2012–2012 2 sentences 2012See In re Estate of Ewers, 206 Kan. 623, 626 , 481 P.2d 970 (1971). 2012See In re Estate of Ewers, 206 Kan. 623, 626 , 481 P.2d 970 (1971).	1	1
United States v. Pricegreen ca10 · 2001 · cited in 1 Kansas opinions naming this issue, 2006–2006	1	1
Lego v. Twomeygreen scotus · 1972 · cited in 1 Kansas opinions naming this issue, 2001–2001	1	1
State v. Rupertgreen kan · 1990 · cited in 1 Kansas opinions naming this issue, 1998–1998	1	1
Cooper v. Oklahomagreen scotus · 1996 · cited in 1 Kansas opinions naming this issue, 1997–1997	1	1
Ferguson v. Hamrickgreen ala · 1980 · cited in 1 Kansas opinions naming this issue, 1995–1995	1	1
Netzel v. United Parcel Service, Inc.green illappct · 1989 · cited in 1 Kansas opinions naming this issue, 1994–1994	1	1

Distinguished, questioned or overruled (0)

Case	Negative	Cited
No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Kansas. Read the followed side critically anyway.

Also cited on this issue (38)

Case	Cited	Years
Apprendi v. New Jersey green scotus · 2000 2 sentences 2010Moreover, the vast weight of our case law applies a preponderance of the evidence standard, particularly when this issue is raised in a challenge under Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466 , 147 L. 2010Moreover, the vast weight of our case law applies a preponderance of the evidence standard, particularly when this issue is raised in a challenge under Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466 , 147 L.	5	2007–2010
State v. Cellier green kan · 1997 2 sentences 2011The party who raises the issue of competence to stand trial has the burden of going forward with the evidence, and the burden of proof is the preponderance of the evidence standard. 263 Kan. 54 , Syl. ¶ 4. 2001He cites State v. Cellier, 263 Kan. 54, 70 , 948 P.2d 616 (1997): "The obvious rule is that a party who raises the issue of competence to stand trial has the burden of going forward with the evidence, which will be measured by the preponderance of the evidence standard.	4	1998–2011
In the Interest of B.D.-Y. green kan · 2008 2 sentences 2026In re B.D.-Y., 286 Kan. 686, 691 , 187 P.3d 594 (2008). 2019In re B.D.-Y., 286 Kan. 686, 691 , 187 P.3d 594 (2008).	3	2014–2026
In Re Bd-Y. green kan · 2008 2 sentences 2026In re B.D.-Y., 286 Kan. 686, 691 , 187 P.3d 594 (2008). 2019In re B.D.-Y., 286 Kan. 686, 691 , 187 P.3d 594 (2008).	3	2014–2026
State v. Porting green kan · 2006 2 sentences 2025State v. Porting, 281 Kan. 320, 324 , 130 P.3d 1173 (2006). 2025State v. Porting, 281 Kan. 320, 324 , 130 P.3d 1173 (2006).	3	2024–2025
Gannon v. State green kan · 2014 2 sentences 2025Our Supreme Court has described the preponderance of the evidence standard as a finding that "'a fact is more probably true than not true.'" Gannon v. State, 298 Kan. 1107, 1124 , 319 P.3d 1196 (2014). 2025Our Supreme Court has described the preponderance of the evidence standard as a finding that "'a fact is more probably true than not true.'" Gannon v. State, 298 Kan. 1107, 1124 , 319 P.3d 1196 (2014).	2	2020–2025
State v. Inkelaar green kanctapp · 2007 2 sentences 2025State v. Inkelaar, 38 Kan. 2021Inkelaar, 38 Kan.	2	2021–2025
In re Interest of R.S., P.S., and A.S. line green kanctapp · 2014 2 sentences 2025In re R.S., 50 Kan. 2020In re R.S., 50 Kan.	2	2020–2025
State v. Rettenberger green utah · 1999 2 sentences 2014In Rettenberger , decided on a preponderance of the evidence standard, the court found a confession inadmissible when law enforcement officers used those psychological ploys — false claims of incriminating evidence and deliberate minimalization of the legal consequences of admitting incriminating conduct — with an especially vulnerable suspect over an extended time. 984 P.2d at 1021 . 2014In Rettenberger, decided on a preponderance of the evidence standard, the court found a confession inadmissible when law enforcement officers used those psychological ploys—false claims of incriminating evidence and deliberate minimalization of the legal consequences of admitting incriminating conduct—with an especially vulnerable suspect over an extended time. 984 P.2d at 1021 .	2	2014–2014
State v. Warledo green kan · 2008 2 sentences 2010See, e.g., State v. Johnson, 284 Kan. 18, 22-23 , 159 P.3d 161 (2007), cert. denied 552 U.S. 1104 (2008) (“judicial fact finding utilizing a preponderance of the evidence standard to increase the mandatory minimum sentence does not run afoul of the jury trial guarantee”); see also State v. Vasquez, 287 Kan. 40, 61 , 194 P.3d 563 (2008) (preponderance); State v. Warledo, 286 Kan. 927, 954-55 , 190 P.3d 937 (2008) (preponderance). 2010See, e.g., State v. Johnson, 284 Kan. 18, 22-23 , 159 P.3d 161 (2007), cert. denied 552 U.S. 1104 (2008) (“judicial fact finding utilizing a preponderance of the evidence standard to increase the mandatory minimum sentence does not run afoul of the jury trial guarantee”); see also State v. Vasquez, 287 Kan. 40, 61 , 194 P.3d 563 (2008) (preponderance); State v. Warledo, 286 Kan. 927, 954-55 , 190 P.3d 937 (2008) (preponderance).	2	2010–2010
Jones v. United States green scotus · 1999 2 sentences 2008Constitutionality Warledo contends that the hard 50 sentencing scheme is unconstitutional because it permits the sentencing court to find facts that enhance the available sentencing range, utilizing a preponderance of the evidence standard, in violation of Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466 , 120 S.Ct. 2348 , 147 L.Ed.2d 435 (2000), and Jones v. United States, 526 U.S. 227 , 119 S.Ct. 1215 , 143 L.Ed.2d 311 (1999). 2008Constitutionality Warledo contends that the hard 50 sentencing scheme is unconstitutional because it permits the sentencing court to find facts that enhance the available sentencing range, utilizing a preponderance of the evidence standard, in violation of Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466 , 120 S.Ct. 2348 , 147 L.Ed.2d 435 (2000), and Jones v. United States, 526 U.S. 227 , 119 S.Ct. 1215 , 143 L.Ed.2d 311 (1999).	2	2007–2008
In the Interest of L.D.B. green kanctapp · 1995 2 sentences 1996App.2d 643, 646-47 , 891 P.2d 468 (1995), the court held that the preponderance of the evidence standard must be used when evaluating whether the parents have rebutted the presumption of unfitness created by K.S.A. 38-1585. 1996App. 2d 643, 646-47 , 891 P.2d 468 (1995), the court held that the preponderance of the evidence standard must be used when evaluating whether the parents have rebutted the presumption of unfitness created by K.S.A. 38-1585.	2	1996–1996
In re Adoption of C.L. green kan · 2018 1 sentence 2024In re Adoption of C.L., 308 Kan. 1268 , 1278, 427 P.3d 951 (2018).	1	2024–2024
State v. Rasler green kan · 1975 2 sentences 2022"Proof beyond a reasonable doubt of the violation of a condition of probation is not required by statute or constitution in a revocation proceeding." State v. Rasler, 216 Kan. 292, 295 , 532 P.2d 1077 (1975). 2022"Proof beyond a reasonable doubt of the violation of a condition of probation is not required by statute or constitution in a revocation proceeding." State v. Rasler, 216 Kan. 292, 295 , 532 P.2d 1077 (1975).	1	2022–2022
Addington v. Texas green scotus · 1979 1 sentence 2019Addington , 441 U.S. at 423 .	1	2019–2019
Nauheim v. City of Topeka green kan · 2019 2 sentences 2019A preponderance of the evidence standard is presumptively applicable to civil actions unless " 'particularly important individual interests or rights are at stake.' " Nauheim v. City of Topeka , 309 Kan. 145 , 152, 432 P.3d 647 (2019). 2019A preponderance of the evidence standard is presumptively applicable to civil actions unless " 'particularly important individual interests or rights are at stake.' " Nauheim v. City of Topeka , 309 Kan. 145 , 152, 432 P.3d 647 (2019).	1	2019–2019
State v. Barnes green kan · 2011 1 sentence 2017Barnes, 293 Kan. at 256 .	1	2017–2017
State v. Ultreras green kan · 2013 1 sentence 2016To impose a preponderance of the evidence standard, we would have to add words to the statute.” 296 Kan. at 843 .	1	2016–2016
In Re DT green ill · 2004 1 sentence 2014The court determined that this satisfied due-process requirements and was the most appropriate ev-identiary standard given the nature of the best-interests standard. 212 Ill. 2d at 366 .	1	2014–2014
McCracken v. Kohl green kan · 2008 1 sentence 2013McCracken, 286 Kan. at 1120 .	1	2013–2013
Robert S. Boit v. Gar-Tec Products, Inc. green ca1 · 1992 2 sentences 2012To support its argument that a preponderance of the evidence standard may apply in such a situation, TIC cites Boit, 967 F.2d 671 . 2012In Boit , the court recognized an evidentiary hearing does not require “evidence [be] ‘taken orally in open court.’ [Citation omitted.]” Boit, 967 F.2d at 676 .	1	2012–2012
Deck v. Moore neutral scotus · 2001	1	2008–2008
Kenney v. New Jersey green scotus · 2001	1	2008–2008
State v. Conley green kan · 2000	1	2008–2008
Cunningham v. California green scotus · 2007	1	2008–2008
Woodall v. United States green scotus · 2002	1	2006–2006
Alabama v. White green scotus · 1990	1	2002–2002
State v. Slater green kan · 1999	1	2002–2002
State v. McClain green kan · 1995	1	2001–2001
State v. Ruden green kan · 1989	1	2001–2001
State v. Garcia green kan · 1992	1	2001–2001
State v. Johnson green kan · 1993	1	2000–2000
Fetzer v. Boling green kanctapp · 1994	1	1998–1998
In re Grimm green nh · 1993	1	1995–1995
Stern v. Ambach neutral nyappdiv · 1987	1	1995–1995
Sherman v. Commission on Licensure to Practice the Healing Art green dc · 1979	1	1995–1995
Grogan v. Garner green scotus · 1991	1	1994–1994
In Re the Appeal of the City of Lenexa green kan · 1983	1	1993–1993

Statutes the citing opinions construe

KS § K.S.A. § 21-4635 (10) KS § K.S.A. § 21-3401 (9) KS § K.S.A. § 21-4636 (8) KS § K.S.A. § 22-3601 (8) KS § K.S.A. § 60-460 (6) KS § K.S.A. § 21-4638 (5) KS § K.S.A. § 21-4706 (5) KS § K.S.A. § 22-3301 (5) KS § K.S.A. § 22-3302 (5) KS § K.S.A. § 38-2269 (5) KS § K.S.A. § 22-3717 (4) KS § K.S.A. § 60-414 (4)

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.

Where else courts name it

TX 474 (1939–2026) CA 349 (1967–2026) PA 323 (1982–2026) TN 300 (1980–2026) IL 168 (1967–2026) MI 137 (1980–2026) KY 132 (1978–2026) WA 128 (1971–2026) GA 126 (1983–2026) VA 124 (1922–2025) OH 117 (1984–2026) NC 91 (1982–2026) CO 88 (1982–2026) MD 87 (1971–2026) NY 87 (1973–2026) SC 83 (1909–2026) NJ 82 (1975–2026) FL 76 (1963–2026) LA 64 (1977–2019) CT 64 (1975–2026) WV 59 (1982–2026) UT 48 (1981–2025) MN 47 (1973–2026) KS 46 (1993–2026) DC 45 (1970–2026) AZ 39 (1981–2025) WY 39 (1979–2026) AK 36 (1977–2025) MA 36 (1978–2025) MO 36 (1993–2025) IN 36 (1980–2026) DE 34 (1972–2026) OR 31 (1975–2024) ME 29 (1974–2023) NV 28 (1980–2025) IA 28 (1980–2025) NM 28 (1978–2023) WI 27 (1981–2025) HI 27 (1989–2026) SD 23 (1975–2026) VT 22 (1983–2021) ND 18 (1981–2023) NH 18 (1982–2024) OK 17 (1976–2024) AL 16 (1992–2017) MS 16 (1988–2026) ID 13 (1992–2022) AR 11 (1955–2024) NE 10 (1985–2023) MT 9 (1973–2022) RI 5 (1991–2026) VI 3 (2011–2015)

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.

← Caselaw search · G Cite Topics · Brief Check