State v. Cheeks
| Docket Number | 104858 |
| Decision Date | 04 October 2013 |
-
- This document is available in original version only for vLex customers
View this document and try vLex for 7 days - TRY VLEX
- This document is available in original version only for vLex customers
Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your 7-day Trial
33 cases
-
State v. Dixon
...are similarly situated. In doing this, this court is limited to examining the distinction advanced by Dixon. See State v. Cheeks , 298 Kan. 1, 5, 310 P.3d 346 (2013), overruled on other ground by State v. LaPointe , 309 Kan. 299, 434 P.3d 850 (2019). Thus, our analysis does not require this......
-
State v. Myers
...bears the burden of establishing that he is similarly situated to members of a class receiving different treatment. State v. Cheeks , 298 Kan. 1, 5, 310 P.3d 346 (2013), overruled on other grounds by State v. LaPointe , 309 Kan. 299, 316, 434 P.3d 850 (2019). In conducting review, this cour......
-
State v. LaPointe
...or rape and therefore caused him to be similarly situated to someone who had been convicted of those crimes. Citing State v. Cheeks , 298 Kan. 1, 6–14, 310 P.3d 346 (2013), LaPointe argued there was no rational basis to treat his offenses and resulting sentences differently from first-degre......
-
Hoesli v. Triplett, Inc.
...of law subject to de novo review. Barrett ex rel. Barrett v. U.S.D. 259,272 Kan. 250, 255, 32 P.3d 1156 (2001); see State v. Cheeks,298 Kan. 1, 4, 310 P.3d 346 (2013)(whether statute violates constitution is question of law); Miller v. Johnson,295 Kan. 636, 646–47, 289 P.3d 1098 (2012)(same......
Get Started for Free