Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 16 KANAPP2D 552 - State v. Clark

State v. Clark’s Empirical Analysis

1992

Citation profile

4
cited by 4 later decisions
1
states following
December 2001
most recently cited

4 state decisions

Relationships

Relies on State Ex Rel. Mays v. Ridenhour

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

  1. ““We find this contention to be without merit. K.S.A. 1991 Supp. 59-2121(c) makes it unlawful to intentionally and knowingly receive or accept clearly excessive fees or expenses ‘in violation of subsection (a).’ Subsection (a) makes all receipt of consideration in connection with an adoption or placement for adoption illegal with six exceptions. “It is clear that it was the legislative intent that all fees, expenses, or other consideration received not meeting one of the six exceptions provided are ‘clearly excessive’ and a violation of 59-2121(c) where the excessive fees or expenses are received or accepted knowingly or intentionally. “Where die defendant requests or receives compensation for ‘fees or expenses’ which falls within one of the six exceptions, the defendant may still be guilty of violating the statute where the amount requested or received is not reasonable, actual, or necessary and the defendant acts knowingly and intentionally. “The class B misdemeanor which arises when a defendant knowingly fails to list all consideration or disbursements in an accounting as required by subsection (b) is an entirely separate crime. “The statute involved here is not unconstitutionally vague. It gives fair warning to those persons potentially subject to it and adequately guards against arbitrary and discriminatory enforcement. State ex rel. Mays v. Ridenhour, 248 Kan. 919, 943 , 811 P.2d 1220 (1991). “In this case, the defendant did not contend that his conduct came within any o”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  2. ““(a) Except as otherwise authorized by law, no person shall request, receive, give or offer to give any consideration in connection with an adoption, or a placement for adoption, other than: (1) Reasonable fees for legal and other professional services rendered in connection with the placement or adoption not to exceed customary fees for similar services by professionals of equivalent experience and reputation where the services are performed, except that fees for legal and other professional services as provided in this section performed outside the state shall not exceed customary fees for similar services when performed in the state of Kansas; (2) reasonable fees in the state of Kansas of a licensed child-placing agency; (3) actual and necessary expenses, based on expenses in the state of Kansas, incident to placement or to the adoption proceeding; (4) actual medical expenses of the mother attributable to pregnancy and birth; (5) actual medical expenses of the child; and (6) reasonable living expenses of the mother which are incurred during or as a result of the pregnancy. “(b) In an action for adoption, a detailed accounting of all consideration given, or to be given, and all disbursements made, or to be made, in connection with the adoption and the placement for adoption shall accompany the petition for adoption. Upon review of the accounting, the court shall disapprove any such consideration which the court determines to be unreasonable or in violation of this section a”
    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.