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

Acquiescence by Acceptance: Kansas Supreme Court Limits Void‑Judgment Claims and Recognizes Standalone Appellate Fee Jurisdiction

Acquiescence by Acceptance: Kansas Supreme Court Limits Void‑Judgment Claims and Recognizes Standalone Appellate Fee Jurisdiction

Date: Aug 9, 2025
Acquiescence by Acceptance: Kansas Supreme Court Limits Void‑Judgment Claims and Recognizes Standalone Appellate Fee Jurisdiction Introduction In Tharrett v. Everett, the Kansas Supreme Court...
Indefinite Suspension with Mandatory Restitution for Dishonest Post-Error Conduct: In re McDowell

Indefinite Suspension with Mandatory Restitution for Dishonest Post-Error Conduct: In re McDowell

Date: Aug 9, 2025
Indefinite Suspension with Mandatory Restitution for Dishonest Post-Error Conduct: In re McDowell Introduction In re McDowell is a Kansas Supreme Court attorney discipline decision arising from a...
State v. Holt (Kan. 2025): Fact-Based Gatekeeping for Postconviction DNA Testing Under K.S.A. 21-2512(c)

State v. Holt (Kan. 2025): Fact-Based Gatekeeping for Postconviction DNA Testing Under K.S.A. 21-2512(c)

Date: Aug 9, 2025
State v. Holt (Kan. 2025): Fact-Based Gatekeeping for Postconviction DNA Testing Under K.S.A. 21-2512(c) Introduction In State v. Holt, the Kansas Supreme Court clarifies an important threshold rule...
State v. Hogan: Prior-Acts Evidence Under K.S.A. 60-455 Is Inadmissible Without Proof the Defendant Committed the Prior Acts

State v. Hogan: Prior-Acts Evidence Under K.S.A. 60-455 Is Inadmissible Without Proof the Defendant Committed the Prior Acts

Date: Aug 2, 2025
State v. Hogan: Prior-Acts Evidence Under K.S.A. 60-455 Is Inadmissible Without Proof the Defendant Committed the Prior Acts Introduction In State v. Hogan, No. 126,442 (Kan. Aug. 1, 2025), the...
State v. Alvarado-Meraz: Proof That a Jury Question Reached the Court Is Required to Trigger Right-to-Be-Present Protections; Wide Latitude in Closing and Robust Gatekeeping on Voluntary Manslaughter Instructions Reaffirmed

State v. Alvarado-Meraz: Proof That a Jury Question Reached the Court Is Required to Trigger Right-to-Be-Present Protections; Wide Latitude in Closing and Robust Gatekeeping on Voluntary Manslaughter Instructions Reaffirmed

Date: Aug 2, 2025
State v. Alvarado-Meraz: Proof That a Jury Question Reached the Court Is Required to Trigger Right-to-Be-Present Protections; Wide Latitude in Closing and Robust Gatekeeping on Voluntary Manslaughter...
THC Testing Not Required to Prove “Marijuana”; Attempted Sale Counts as “Distribution,” and Felony-Murder Res Gestae Encompasses a Continuous Drug-Deal Transaction — Commentary on State v. Brown (Kan. 2025)

THC Testing Not Required to Prove “Marijuana”; Attempted Sale Counts as “Distribution,” and Felony-Murder Res Gestae Encompasses a Continuous Drug-Deal Transaction — Commentary on State v. Brown (Kan. 2025)

Date: Aug 2, 2025
THC Testing Not Required to Prove “Marijuana”; Attempted Sale Counts as “Distribution,” and Felony-Murder Res Gestae Encompasses a Continuous Drug-Deal Transaction — Commentary on State v. Brown...
One Violation Is Enough: Mandatory EJJP Revocation and Nonmodifiable Adult Sentences in Kansas (In re D.J., 2025)

One Violation Is Enough: Mandatory EJJP Revocation and Nonmodifiable Adult Sentences in Kansas (In re D.J., 2025)

Date: Aug 2, 2025
One Violation Is Enough: Mandatory EJJP Revocation and Nonmodifiable Adult Sentences in Kansas Commentary on In re D.J., No. 127,414 (Kan. Aug. 1, 2025) Introduction In re D.J. is a significant...
State v. McNeal: Kansas Clarifies Paths to Prove Fair-Cross-Section Claims, Rejects Race‑Switching Implicit‑Bias Instructions, and Reaffirms the Low Threshold for Miranda Waivers

State v. McNeal: Kansas Clarifies Paths to Prove Fair-Cross-Section Claims, Rejects Race‑Switching Implicit‑Bias Instructions, and Reaffirms the Low Threshold for Miranda Waivers

Date: Jul 26, 2025
State v. McNeal: Kansas Clarifies Paths to Prove Fair-Cross-Section Claims, Rejects Race‑Switching Implicit‑Bias Instructions, and Reaffirms the Low Threshold for Miranda Waivers Introduction In...
Mandatory Romeo-and-Juliet Screening and Narrow “Sexually Explicit Conduct” Definition for Under‑19 Sexting Cases: State v. Grant (Kan. 2025)

Mandatory Romeo-and-Juliet Screening and Narrow “Sexually Explicit Conduct” Definition for Under‑19 Sexting Cases: State v. Grant (Kan. 2025)

Date: Jul 26, 2025
Mandatory Romeo-and-Juliet Screening and Narrow “Sexually Explicit Conduct” Definition for Under‑19 Sexting Cases: State v. Grant (Kan. 2025) Introduction In State v. Grant, the Supreme Court of...
Reply Briefs Cannot Salvage Unpreserved Issues: Kansas Supreme Court Requires Rule 6.02(a)(5) Exceptions in the Opening Brief (Schutt v. Foster)

Reply Briefs Cannot Salvage Unpreserved Issues: Kansas Supreme Court Requires Rule 6.02(a)(5) Exceptions in the Opening Brief (Schutt v. Foster)

Date: Jul 26, 2025
Reply Briefs Cannot Salvage Unpreserved Issues: Kansas Supreme Court Requires Rule 6.02(a)(5) Exceptions in the Opening Brief Case: Schutt v. Foster, No. 126,555 (Kan. July 25, 2025) Court: Supreme...
“Proffer Is Not Evidence”: Kansas Supreme Court Limits K.S.A. 38-2248(f) and Bars Termination of Parental Rights Based on Proffer Alone

“Proffer Is Not Evidence”: Kansas Supreme Court Limits K.S.A. 38-2248(f) and Bars Termination of Parental Rights Based on Proffer Alone

Date: Jul 19, 2025
“Proffer Is Not Evidence”: Kansas Supreme Court Limits K.S.A. 38-2248(f) and Bars Termination of Parental Rights Based on Proffer Alone Introduction In In re A.K., No. 127,259 (Kan. July 18, 2025),...
State v. Cherry: COVID‑19 Delays Weighed Neutrally in Barker Analysis; Trial Judges Have Discretion Over the Duration of Displaying Admitted Exhibits

State v. Cherry: COVID‑19 Delays Weighed Neutrally in Barker Analysis; Trial Judges Have Discretion Over the Duration of Displaying Admitted Exhibits

Date: Jul 19, 2025
State v. Cherry: COVID‑19 Delays Weighed Neutrally in Barker Analysis; Trial Judges Have Discretion Over the Duration of Displaying Admitted Exhibits Court: Supreme Court of Kansas Date: July 18,...
Lockdown, Then Consent: Kansas High Court Upholds Premises Security Pending Warrant and Validates Nonverbal Consent to Home Entry

Lockdown, Then Consent: Kansas High Court Upholds Premises Security Pending Warrant and Validates Nonverbal Consent to Home Entry

Date: Jul 4, 2025
Lockdown, Then Consent: Kansas High Court Upholds Premises Security Pending Warrant and Validates Nonverbal Consent to Home Entry Case: State v. Arredondo (No. 126,819) — Supreme Court of Kansas —...
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...
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...
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...
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...
Previous   Next
CaseMine Logo

Know us better!

  • Request a Demo
  • Watch Casemine overview Videos

Company

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

Help

  • Pricing
  • Help & Support
  • Features
  • Workflow
  • 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