Kazalyn v. State’s Empirical Analysis
1992
Citation profile
12 federal appellate · 6 district · 56 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 91 later decisions — most recently August 2023 · most notably Leonard v. State (2001), Evans v. State (2001)
12 federal appellate · 6 district · 56 state decisions
Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.
Relationships
Relies on Cage v. Louisiana · Petrocelli v. State · Nester v. State · Lord v. State · Daly v. State
Most-quoted passages
The sentences later courts lift from this opinion, ranked by how many decisions quote each — the parts of the opinion doing the work. These counts are smaller than the citation total above because most of the 91 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“Premeditation is a design, a determination to kill, distinctly formed in the mind at any moment before or at the time of the killing. Premeditation need not be for a day, an hour or even a minute. It may be as instantaneous as successive thoughts of the mind. For if the jury believes from the evidence that the act constituting the killing has been preceded by and has been the result of premeditation, no matter how rapidly the premeditation is followed by the act constituting the killing, it is willful, deliberate and premeditated murder.”
7 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Polk v. Sandoval · Babb v. Lozowsky“Additional penalty: Use of a deadly weapon or tear gas in commission of crime; restriction of probation. 1. [A]ny person who uses a firearm or other deadly weapon ... in the commission of a crime shall be punished by imprisonment in the state prison for a term equal to and in addition to the term of imprisonment prescribed by statute for the crime. The sentence prescribed by this section runs consecutively with the sentence prescribed by statute for the crime. 2. This section does not create any separate offense but provides an additional penalty for the primary offense, whose imposition is contingent upon the finding of the prescribed fact. 3. The provisions of subsections 1 and 2 do not apply where the use of a firearm, [or] other deadly weapon ... is a necessary element of such crime.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Palmer v. State · Smith v. State“its probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice, of confusion of the issues or of misleading the jury.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Kelly v. State · Prabhu v. Levine
How this case has been treated — in progress
Whether each later court followed, distinguished, criticized, or overruled this decision. The treatment classification (task #35) runs highest-cited cases first and lights up here as it reaches this one.