12 Kan. App. 2d 245 - State v. Doeden’s Empirical Analysis
1987
Citation profile
8 state decisions
Relationships
Relies on Micheaux v. Amalgamated Meatcutters & Butcher Workmen of North America, Local P-94 · Paul v. City of Manhattan · State v. Zimmerman & Schmidt · 7 Kan. App. 2d 225 - Arduser v. Daniel International Corp. · 8 Kan. App. 2d 652 - State v. Sleeth
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 8 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““If you decide to submit to testing, after testing is completed you have the right to consult with an attorney and you may have additional testing done as soon as possible and as available.””
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the dissent““But there is yet another reason why I differ, specifically, with the majority. In a careful study of K.S.A. 1985 Supp. 8-1001,1 can reach no conclusion but that that statute is ultimately clear and not ambiguous. The statute thus means what.it says and must be interpreted according to the Legislature’s language. The majority has undertaken to define and explain what they feel the Legislature means by this statute but, again the law is most clear that we do not have the prerogative of looking behind the legislative scenes to interpret what the Legislature meant in enacting a statute which is itself clear and unambiguous on its face. ‘Where a statute is plain and unambiguous, this court must give effect to the intention of the legislature as expressed rather than determine what the law should or should not be.’ State v. Sleeth, 8 Kan. App. 2d 652, 655 , 664 P.2d 883 (1983) (quoting Arduser v. Daniel International Corp., 7 Kan. App. 2d 225 , Syl. ¶ 1, 640 P.2d 329 , rev. denied 231 Kan. 799 [1982]). We are not called upon to address the wisdom, or lack thereof, of enacting the statute before us.” 12 Kan. App. 2d at 254 .”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the dissent
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.