12 Kan. App. 2d 464 - State v. McMannis’s Empirical Analysis
1987
Citation profile
2 federal appellate · 12 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 16 later decisions — most recently September 2012
2 federal appellate · 12 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 State v. Howell & Taylor · State v. Houck · In re the Inquiry Relating to Woodworth · State v. Slansky · 10 Kan. App. 2d 408 - State v. Gardner
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 16 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““The information-evidence-verdict relationship presented by this appeal is similar to the situation in State v. Houck, 240 Kan. 130 , 727 P.2d 460 (1986). In Houck , the defendant was charged and convicted of committing aggravated arson under K.S.A. 21-3718(l)(a) and K.S.A. 21-3719. However, the evidence of the case was that defendant committed aggravated arson under a different section of the statute, K.S.A. 21-3718(l)(b); K.S.A. 21-3719. The court reversed the conviction of aggravated arson .... “The evidence may establish that defendant McMannis committed a crime; however, it was neither the crime alleged in the information nor the crime on which the jury was instructed and the defendant convicted. “The State contends McMannis’s conviction should be affirmed because the evidence established that defendant possessed a stimulant with intent to sell. A conviction cannot be upheld when the State fails to prove the offense charged, even if the evidence establishes some other offense the State did not charge. Houck, 240 Kan. at 136 .” 12 Kan. App. 2d at 465-66 .”
2 later decisions quote this exact passagee.g. State v. Dickson · State v. Schad
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.