State v. Nichols’s Empirical Analysis
1949
Citation profile
2 federal appellate · 46 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 48 later decisions — most recently May 2010 · most notably State v. Moses (1980), State v. Aguilar (2010)
2 federal appellate · 46 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. Calhoun · Parks v. Amrine · State v. Carte · Christensen v. State · State v. Oberst
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 48 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““When the accused is represented by capable counsel and the [guilty] plea is freely, fairly and intelligently made, and its consequences understood, it should not be set aside. When some or all of these facts are lacking, common justice may authorize or require the setting aside of the plea. The appropriate method of seeking to have that done is for defendant to file a motion in the same court and in the same case in which the plea was entered. The motion should set up the facts in issuable form showing or tending to show grounds upon which the plea should be set aside. Ordinarily it is required to allege that the defendant is not guilty of the crime charged. The time of the filing of the motion, whether before or after the sentence, is not controlling.” 167 Kan. at 577-78 .”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““. . . Normally, after sentence is imposed, the district court has nothing further to do with respect to the defendant. It is the duty of the sheriff to carry out the order of the court and transfer defendant to the state penitentiary. In this case, no doubt the sheriff was awaiting the copy of the journal of the court required by the section last mentioned. It is well settled by our decisions (Parks v. Amrine, 154 Kan. 168 , 117 P. 2d 586 ; State v. Carte, 157 Kan. 139 , 138 P. 2d 429 ; Layman v. Hudspeth, 162 Kan. 445 , 176 P. 2d 527 ) that defendant commenced the serving of his sentence on January 14, the day he was sentenced and taken into the custody of tifie sheriff. . . .” (pp. 572, 573.)”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. State v. Dearman
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.