State v. Badders’s Empirical Analysis
1935
Citation profile
2 federal appellate · 56 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 58 later decisions — most recently January 1971 · most notably State v. Oswald (1966), State v. Latham & York (1962)
2 federal appellate · 56 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. Hooper · State v. Frizzell · State v. Reuter · State v. Jones · State v. Furthmyer
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 58 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““. . . When during a trial it is brought out by the testimony of any witness, or is called to the attention of the court by anyone connected with the case, that the defendant then on trial is insane, or that there is a serious question as to his sanity at that time, it is the duty of the court to stop the trial and make an inquiry concerning that matter. (State v. Detar, 125 Kan. 218 , 263 Pac. 1071 .) . . .” (l. c. 686.)”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. State v. Collins · State v. Kelly““. . . the county attorney refused to deliver to defendant for inspection written statements made by the four young men to the county attorney in his office when he was attempting to learn the facts respecting the offense. It is sufficient to say defendant was not entitled to inspect such statements. They were in no sense public records and amounted to no more than memoranda the county attorney might have made of what the witnesses told him. (See State v. Laird, 79 Kan. 681 , 100 Pac. 637 ; State v. Jeffries, 117 Kan. 742 , 232 Pac. 873 ; State v. Furthmyer, 128 Kan. 317 , 277 Pac. 1019 ; State v. Hooper, 140 Kan. 482 , 37 P. 2d 52 .)” (l. c. 685.)”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. State v. Jones““. . . The preliminary examination in a felony case is not a trial in the sense that word ordinarily is used. (16 C. J. 316, 323.) It is purely statutory, since it was unknown at common law. (16 C. J. 314.) It is not judicial, and authority to conduct such examination may be vested in persons other than courts (16 C. J. 319), such as mayors (R. S. 62-201). . . .” (l. c. 685.)”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. State v. Crowe
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.