13 Kan. App. 2d 417 - State v. Hinckley’s Empirical Analysis
1989
Citation profile
40 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 40 later decisions — most recently November 2018 · most notably State v. Applegate (1999), State v. Hunziker (2002)
40 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. Massey · State v. Haines · State v. Yost · 132 Ill. App. 3d 842 - People v. Ensley · 11 Kan. App. 2d 428 - State v. Jones
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 40 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““(a) Except as required by subsection (d), nothing in this section shall be construed to limit the authority of the court to impose or modify any general or specific conditions of probation, suspension of sentence or assignment to a community correctional services program .... “(d) In addition to any other conditions of probation, suspension of sentence or assignment to a community correctional services program, the court shall order the defendant to comply with each of the following conditions: (1) Make reparation or restitution to the aggrieved party for the damage or loss caused by the defendant’s crime, in an amount and manner determined by the court and to the person specified by the court, unless the court finds compelling circumstances which would rentier a plan of restitution unworkable. If the court finds a plan of restitution unworkable, the court shall state on the record in detail the reasons therefor; (3) reimburse the state general fund for all or a part of the expenditures by the state board of indigents’ defense services to provide counsel and other defense services to the defendant. In determining the amount and method of payment of such sum, the court shall take account of the financial resources of the defendant and the nature of the burden that payment of such sum will impose. A defendant who has been required to pay such sum and who is not willfully in default in the payment thereof may at any time petition the court which sentenced the defendant to waive”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. State v. Schulze“Legislative intent is that restitution should make victims whole and provide both deterrents and rehabilitation to the person who commits the crime. The [district] court would not abuse its discretion in making the victim whole by ordering restitution equal to the victim's loss.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. State v. Banfield“clearly requires the defendant to pay a sum of money in excess of the amount of damage his criminal conduct caused the victim.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage
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.