State v. Morris’s Empirical Analysis
1930
Citation profile
11 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 11 later decisions — most recently January 1992
11 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. Chance · State v. Hart · State v. Spendlove · State v. Hoerr · State v. Tassell
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 11 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““After arraignment and the impaneling of the jury, and when the first witness was called, the question of the sufficiency of the information was raised. Then the county attorney asked and obtained leave to amend the information by substituting his own name for that of Griffith. The amendment, a mere matter of form, did not embarrass the defendant in making his defense, and besides, the allowance of the amendment was a matter within the discretion of the court. An amendment of substance as well as of form is permissible after a plea of guilty. (State v. Chance, 82 Kan. 388 , 108 Pac. 789 .) Indeed, amendments have been allowed and upheld after one trial of a defendant has been had and a new trial has been granted. (State v. Hart, 33 Kan. 218 , 6 Pac. 288 ; State v. Spendlove, 47 Kan. 160 , 28 Pac. 994 .) There was no error in the ruling.” (p. 283.)”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. State v. McAlister
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.