Log In
  • India
  • UK & Ireland
CaseMine Logo
Please enter at least 3 characters.
Parallel Search is an AI-driven legal research functionality that uses natural language understanding to find conceptually relevant case law, even without exact keyword matches.
Hi, I'm AMICUS. Your GPT powered virtual legal assistant. Let's chat.
  • Parallel Search NEW
  • CaseIQ
  • AMICUS (Powered by GPT)
  • Federal
    U.S. Supreme Court
    Federal Circuit
    1st Circuit
    2d Circuit
    3d Circuit
    4th Circuit
    5th Circuit
    6th Circuit
    7th Circuit
    8th Circuit
    9th Circuit
    10th Circuit
    11th Circuit
    Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit
    Board of Immigration Appeals
    Special Courts
    Bankruptcy
  • State
    Alabama
    Alaska
    Arkansas
    Arizona
    California
    Colorado
    Connecticut
    Delaware
    District Of Columbia
    Florida
    Georgia
    Guam
    Hawaii
    Iowa
    Idaho
    Illinois
    Indiana
    Kansas
    Kentucky
    Louisiana
    Massachusetts
    Maryland
    Maine
    Michigan
    Minnesota
    Missouri
    Mississippi
    Montana
    Nebraska
    North Carolina
    North Dakota
    New Hampshire
    New Jersey
    Northern Mariana Islands
    New Mexico
    Nevada
    New York
    Ohio
    Oklahoma
    Oregon
    Pennsylvania
    Puerto Rico
    Rhode Island
    South Carolina
    South Dakota
    Tennessee
    Texas
    Utah
    Virginia
    Vermont
    Washington
    Wisconsin
    West Virginia
    Wyoming
Log In Sign Up US Judgments
  • India
  • UK & Ireland

Alert

How is this helpful for me?

  • Creating your profile on CaseMine allows you to build your network with fellow lawyers and prospective clients. Once you create your profile, you will be able to:
    1. Claim the judgments where you have appeared by linking them directly to your profile and maintain a record of your body of work.
    2. Interact directly with CaseMine users looking for advocates in your area of specialization.
  • Creating a unique profile web page containing interviews, posts, articles, as well as the cases you have appeared in, greatly enhances your digital presence on search engines such Google and Bing, resulting in increased client interest.
  • The cases linked on your profile facilitate Casemine's artificial intelligence engine in recommending you to potential clients who might be interested in availing your services for similar matters.

  Know more  

Create your profile now
  • Commentaries
  • Judgments

Kansas Case Commentaries

State v. Haynes: A Defendant’s Direct-Motion Right to Obtain Warrant Affidavits—But Not Warrants—Under K.S.A. 22-2302(b) and 22-2502(d)

State v. Haynes: A Defendant’s Direct-Motion Right to Obtain Warrant Affidavits—But Not Warrants—Under K.S.A. 22-2302(b) and 22-2502(d)

Date: Jul 4, 2025
State v. Haynes: A Defendant’s Direct-Motion Right to Obtain Warrant Affidavits—But Not Warrants—Under K.S.A. 22-2302(b) and 22-2502(d) Introduction In State v. Haynes (Kan. July 3, 2025), the Kansas...
Kansas adopts a rebuttable “presumed prejudice” standard under Section 5 for jury-instruction omissions of an element

Kansas adopts a rebuttable “presumed prejudice” standard under Section 5 for jury-instruction omissions of an element

Date: Jul 4, 2025
Kansas adopts a rebuttable “presumed prejudice” standard under Section 5 for jury-instruction omissions of an element Introduction In State v. Gleason, No. 125,156 (Kan. July 3, 2025), the Supreme...
State v. Mitchell: Kansas Supreme Court Confirms Broad Discretion to Deny Hard-25 Departure and to Impose Consecutive Hard-50 Sentences for Multiple Victims

State v. Mitchell: Kansas Supreme Court Confirms Broad Discretion to Deny Hard-25 Departure and to Impose Consecutive Hard-50 Sentences for Multiple Victims

Date: Jul 4, 2025
State v. Mitchell: Kansas Supreme Court Confirms Broad Discretion to Deny Hard-25 Departure and to Impose Consecutive Hard-50 Sentences for Multiple Victims Introduction In State v. Mitchell, No....
Arbitrary-Enforcement Vagueness Challenges Are Inherently Facial and Defendants Have Standing: State v. Stubbs Recasts Kansas Standing Doctrine

Arbitrary-Enforcement Vagueness Challenges Are Inherently Facial and Defendants Have Standing: State v. Stubbs Recasts Kansas Standing Doctrine

Date: Jun 28, 2025
Arbitrary-Enforcement Vagueness Challenges Are Inherently Facial and Defendants Have Standing: State v. Stubbs Recasts Kansas Standing Doctrine Introduction In State v. Stubbs, No. 125,003 (Kan. June...
No Prudential Exceptions: Mootness Is a Jurisdictional Bar in Kansas — Commentary on State v. Phipps (Kan. 2025)

No Prudential Exceptions: Mootness Is a Jurisdictional Bar in Kansas — Commentary on State v. Phipps (Kan. 2025)

Date: Jun 28, 2025
No Prudential Exceptions: Mootness Is a Jurisdictional Bar in Kansas — State v. Phipps (Kan. 2025) Introduction In State v. Phipps, the Kansas Supreme Court announced a sweeping recalibration of the...
Open Area Means Open to the Public: Kansas Supreme Court Affirms Recreational-Use Immunity for Indoor Libraries and Integral Areas, and Bars New Issues in Post‑Grant Supplemental Briefs

Open Area Means Open to the Public: Kansas Supreme Court Affirms Recreational-Use Immunity for Indoor Libraries and Integral Areas, and Bars New Issues in Post‑Grant Supplemental Briefs

Date: Jun 28, 2025
Open Area Means Open to the Public: Kansas Supreme Court Affirms Recreational-Use Immunity for Indoor Libraries and Integral Areas, and Bars New Issues in Post‑Grant Supplemental Briefs Introduction...
State v. Wash: Strict Limits on Prosecutorial Argument—Violations of Orders in Limine and “We Know” Statements Are Error; Timely Objection Required for Evidentiary-Based Missteps

State v. Wash: Strict Limits on Prosecutorial Argument—Violations of Orders in Limine and “We Know” Statements Are Error; Timely Objection Required for Evidentiary-Based Missteps

Date: Jun 28, 2025
State v. Wash: Strict Limits on Prosecutorial Argument—Violations of Orders in Limine and “We Know” Statements Are Error; Timely Objection Required for Evidentiary-Based Missteps Introduction In...
State v. Ninh: “Overcome by Force or Fear” Is a Single Unified Means; Subjective Fear Suffices; and “Grooming-as-Force” Requires Evidentiary Support

State v. Ninh: “Overcome by Force or Fear” Is a Single Unified Means; Subjective Fear Suffices; and “Grooming-as-Force” Requires Evidentiary Support

Date: Jun 28, 2025
State v. Ninh: “Overcome by Force or Fear” Is a Single Unified Means; Subjective Fear Suffices; and “Grooming-as-Force” Requires Evidentiary Support Introduction In State v. Ninh, No. 122,782 (Kan....
State v. Green: Premeditation’s Time-and-Consideration Test Bars Arbitrary-Enforcement Vagueness Claims; Evidentiary Proof Required for Witness “Unavailability”; No Renewed Faretta Colloquy Absent Changed Circumstances

State v. Green: Premeditation’s Time-and-Consideration Test Bars Arbitrary-Enforcement Vagueness Claims; Evidentiary Proof Required for Witness “Unavailability”; No Renewed Faretta Colloquy Absent Changed Circumstances

Date: Jun 28, 2025
State v. Green: Premeditation’s Time-and-Consideration Test Bars Arbitrary-Enforcement Vagueness Claims; Evidentiary Proof Required for Witness “Unavailability”; No Renewed Faretta Colloquy Absent...
State v. Ford: Tethering “Force” to the Sexual Act and Upholding Kansas’s Rape Statute Against Vagueness

State v. Ford: Tethering “Force” to the Sexual Act and Upholding Kansas’s Rape Statute Against Vagueness

Date: Jun 28, 2025
State v. Ford: Tethering “Force” to the Sexual Act and Upholding Kansas’s Rape Statute Against Vagueness Court: Supreme Court of Kansas Date: June 27, 2025 Docket No.: 124,236 Introduction This...
“Related in Some Way”: Kansas Supreme Court clarifies “common scheme or plan” joinder and preservation of evidentiary error in State v. Ross

“Related in Some Way”: Kansas Supreme Court clarifies “common scheme or plan” joinder and preservation of evidentiary error in State v. Ross

Date: Jun 14, 2025
“Related in Some Way”: Kansas Supreme Court clarifies “common scheme or plan” joinder and preservation of evidentiary error in State v. Ross Introduction In State v. Ross (Kan. June 13, 2025), the...
No Imperfect Self-Defense Instruction Without Evidence of a Subjective Belief in the Need for Lethal Force; “Sudden Quarrel” Requires Objective Sufficient Provocation — Commentary on State v. Thille (Kan. 2025)

No Imperfect Self-Defense Instruction Without Evidence of a Subjective Belief in the Need for Lethal Force; “Sudden Quarrel” Requires Objective Sufficient Provocation — Commentary on State v. Thille (Kan. 2025)

Date: Jun 14, 2025
No Imperfect Self-Defense Instruction Without Evidence of a Subjective Belief in the Need for Lethal Force; “Sudden Quarrel” Requires Objective Sufficient Provocation — Commentary on State v. Thille...
State v. Brown (Kan. 2025): Constitutional Claims Are Not Cognizable Under K.S.A. 22-3504; Postrelease Supervision Cannot Attach to Off-Grid Life Sentences and May Be Vacated on Appeal Without Resentencing

State v. Brown (Kan. 2025): Constitutional Claims Are Not Cognizable Under K.S.A. 22-3504; Postrelease Supervision Cannot Attach to Off-Grid Life Sentences and May Be Vacated on Appeal Without Resentencing

Date: Jun 7, 2025
State v. Brown (Kan. 2025): Constitutional Claims Are Not Cognizable Under K.S.A. 22-3504; Postrelease Supervision Cannot Attach to Off-Grid Life Sentences and May Be Vacated on Appeal Without...
State v. Wilson: K‑9 Sniff of a Lawfully Parked Vehicle Is Not a Search and the Driver–Vehicle Seizure Nexus Breaks When the Driver Cannot Lawfully Drive

State v. Wilson: K‑9 Sniff of a Lawfully Parked Vehicle Is Not a Search and the Driver–Vehicle Seizure Nexus Breaks When the Driver Cannot Lawfully Drive

Date: May 31, 2025
State v. Wilson: K‑9 Sniff of a Lawfully Parked Vehicle Is Not a Search and the Driver–Vehicle Seizure Nexus Breaks When the Driver Cannot Lawfully Drive Introduction In State v. Wilson, No. 125,283...
Kansas Supreme Court Clarifies Pleading and Proof Burdens for Postconviction DNA Testing: Petitioner Must Allege and, If Disputed, Prove Existence of Biological Material Under K.S.A. 21-2512

Kansas Supreme Court Clarifies Pleading and Proof Burdens for Postconviction DNA Testing: Petitioner Must Allege and, If Disputed, Prove Existence of Biological Material Under K.S.A. 21-2512

Date: May 24, 2025
Kansas Supreme Court Clarifies Pleading and Proof Burdens for Postconviction DNA Testing: Petitioner Must Allege and, If Disputed, Prove Existence of Biological Material Under K.S.A. 21-2512 Case:...
State v. Boatwright: When Accomplice Instructions Are Unnecessary and Prosecutorial Remarks Must Be Read in Context

State v. Boatwright: When Accomplice Instructions Are Unnecessary and Prosecutorial Remarks Must Be Read in Context

Date: May 24, 2025
State v. Boatwright: When Accomplice Instructions Are Unnecessary and Prosecutorial Remarks Must Be Read in Context Introduction In State v. Boatwright, No. 125,851 (Kan. May 23, 2025), the Supreme...
No Late-Stage Probation and No “Pattern” from Decades-Old Discipline: Kansas Supreme Court Clarifies Rule 227 and Aggravation Analysis in In re Daniels

No Late-Stage Probation and No “Pattern” from Decades-Old Discipline: Kansas Supreme Court Clarifies Rule 227 and Aggravation Analysis in In re Daniels

Date: May 17, 2025
No Late-Stage Probation and No “Pattern” from Decades-Old Discipline: Kansas Supreme Court Clarifies Rule 227 and Aggravation Analysis in In re Daniels Introduction In In re Daniels, No. 127,949...
State v. Humphrey: No Objection Needed—K.S.A. 60-404 Does Not Bar Appellate Sufficiency Challenges to Restitution; State Must Prove Amount with Substantial Competent Evidence

State v. Humphrey: No Objection Needed—K.S.A. 60-404 Does Not Bar Appellate Sufficiency Challenges to Restitution; State Must Prove Amount with Substantial Competent Evidence

Date: May 10, 2025
State v. Humphrey: No Objection Needed—K.S.A. 60-404 Does Not Bar Appellate Sufficiency Challenges to Restitution; State Must Prove Amount with Substantial Competent Evidence Court: Supreme Court of...
State v. Young: Kansas Supreme Court clarifies “prior criminal activity” vs. Sentencing Guidelines “criminal history” and reaffirms the extraordinary showing required to mitigate a hard 50 to a hard 25

State v. Young: Kansas Supreme Court clarifies “prior criminal activity” vs. Sentencing Guidelines “criminal history” and reaffirms the extraordinary showing required to mitigate a hard 50 to a hard 25

Date: May 10, 2025
State v. Young: Clarifying “Prior Criminal Activity” and Reaffirming the High Bar for Hard‑50 Mitigation Introduction In State v. Young (Kan. May 9, 2025), the Kansas Supreme Court affirmed...
Volitional Act Means Voluntary Trigger Pull, Not Intent to Fire: Kansas Supreme Court Adopts Two‑Part Test for PLCAA Immunity in Product‑Liability Suits

Volitional Act Means Voluntary Trigger Pull, Not Intent to Fire: Kansas Supreme Court Adopts Two‑Part Test for PLCAA Immunity in Product‑Liability Suits

Date: Apr 26, 2025
Volitional Act Means Voluntary Trigger Pull, Not Intent to Fire: Kansas Supreme Court Adopts Two‑Part Test for PLCAA Immunity in Product‑Liability Suits Introduction In Johnson v. Bass Pro Outdoor...
Previous   Next
CaseMine Logo

Know us better!

  • Request a Demo
  • Watch Casemine overview Videos

Company

  • About Us
  • Privacy Policy
  • Terms
  • Careers
  • FAQs
  • Columns
  • Contact Us

Help

  • Pricing
  • Help & Support
  • Features
  • Workflow
  • Campus Connect Fellow Program
  • CaseMine API
  • CaseMine's Bespoke AI Solutions
  • Judge Signup
  • Student Signup

CaseMine Tools

  • CaseIQ
  • Judgment Search
  • Parallel Search
  • AttorneyIQ
  • Browse Cases

© 2023 Gauge Data Solutions Pvt. Ltd.

Summary

Alert