Search
Filter Search
Schaad v. Alder
Ruled that an income tax statute providing that, during the COVID-19 pandemic, workers would be taxed by municipality that was their principal place of work rather than by municipality where they actually performed their work, did not violate state's Home Rule Amendment
Kansas’s Constitution Is a Source of Expanded Rights
Kansans enjoy broad rights to bear arms, reproductive autonomy, and education.
Native Village of Kwinhagak v. State, Department of Health & Social Services
Held that both the State's delay in notifying other parties to “child in need of aid” case of child's admission to hospital, as well as the 46-day delay between the child's hospitalization and the hearing on whether such hospitalization was justified, violated procedural due process
In re Noem
Held that the contract clause of the state constitution prohibits a legislator, or former legislator within one year following the expiration of the legislator's term, from being interested, directly or indirectly, in contracts that are authorized by laws passed during the legislator's term, but does not categorically prohibit all contracts between legislators and the State
BABE VOTE v. McGrane
Held that laws prohibiting the use of student IDs for voting purposes did not violate the state constitution
Becerra v. State
Ruled that the presence of an alternate juror during a petit jury's deliberations did not violate the state constitutional right to a jury composed of twelve people; however, the alternate juror's participation in jury deliberations was impermissible and violated provision in the code of criminal procedure
Neptune Swimming Foundation v. City of Scottsdale
Ruled that the City of Scottsdale did not violate the state's gift clause when it awarded an operating license to plaintiff swim club's competitor at below-market rates
Cao v. PFP Dorsey Investments
Held that a forced sale of a condominium as required by a contract and within the bounds of the state Condominium Act did not violate the state constitution's eminent domain provision.
Forward Montana v. State
Held that plaintiffs were entitled to attorney's fees for challenging two statutory provisions relating to campaign activities and judicial recusal, added to state's campaign finance bill, that would have violated the state constitution's single subject rule and rule on amendments
