Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 124 KAN 20 - State v. McCarthy

State v. McCarthy’s Empirical Analysis

1927

Citation profile

7
cited by 7 later decisions
2
states following
July 1988
most recently cited

7 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 7 later decisions — most recently July 1988

7 state decisions

301927193019401950196019701980decided

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. Reno · State v. Hutzel

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 7 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. ““The rule as to the sufficiency of an information is that if it fairly apprises the defendant of the crime charged against him and is definite enough so that the court will have no trouble in ascertaining the correct sentence to impose upon a verdict or plea of guilty (State v. Hutzel, 108 Kan. 456 , 195 Pac. 887 ), the information is good against a motion to quash.” (p. 21.)”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority

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.