15 Kan. App. 2d 17 - State v. Kershner’s Empirical Analysis
1990
Citation profile
18 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 18 later decisions — most recently September 2010
18 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 In the Matter of Samuel Winship · Patterson v. New York · Tinkle v. United States · 6 Kan. App. 2d 688 - State v. Puckett · State v. Puckett
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 18 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““Defendant argues that the crimes with which he was charged were specific intent crimes but, due to the trial court’s erroneous interpretation of ‘willful’ under K.S.A. 17-1267(a), the State did not sustain its burden of proof. “While the Kansas Securities Act does not define ‘willful,’ our Supreme Court has. No specific intent is required where one violates■ the Securities Act ‘except the intent to do the act denounced by statute.’ State v. Hodge, 204 Kan. 98, 107 , 460 P.2d 596 (1969). “ ‘Willfully’ under 17-1267 means the defendant acted intentionally in the sense that he was aware of what he was doing. State v. Puckett, 6 Kan. App. 2d 688, 699 , 634 P.2d 144 (1981), aff'd 230 Kan. 596 (1982). Sister states have also found that specific intent is not required to sustain a conviction under similar statutes. See, e.g., State v. Fries, 214 Neb. 874 , 337 N.W.2d 398 (1983); State v. Sheets, 94 N.M. 356 , 610 P.2d 760 (1980).” (Emphasis added.)”
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.