Kamen v. Gray’s Empirical Analysis
1950
Citation profile
30 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 30 later decisions — most recently December 1993 · most notably State v. Dowthard (1962), State v. Calvert (1973)
30 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 re McMicken for a Writ of Habeas Corpus · State v. Reynolds · State v. McKinney · In re Rockwood · State v. Stiff
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 30 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““The state contends that habeas corpus did not lie in this case for the reason that petitioner’s cause is still pending and undetermined in the lower court. However, this court held many years ago that if the petitioner was entitled to his discharge in the district court, he ought to be released in his proceeding by habeas corpus, as that proceeding is the only one which affords him a speedy remedy. If his only remedy is by appeal, he must continue wrongfully restrained of his liberty until the case is finally determined by the district court, as an appeal can be taken by the defendant only after judgment. It would be a palpable violation of the bill of rights, and also of the statute, to require an accused who is entitled to his discharge, so far as relates to the offense for which he was committed, to be restrained of his liberty indefinitely at the instance of the state, or upon the order of the court, to await a final trial, or determination of the case against him.” 169 Kan. at 669 . Emphasis added.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority““I am declaring a mistrial, and that ends the trial of this case. * * * j * * will require a new information totally. * * * If the defense has any objections ? Defense Counsel: We will even assist them, if they want us to, in the description of the property. On inquiry by counsel for the state as to grounds for the declaration of a mistrial, the court said: Oh, there is so much prejudicial error went to the jury with respect to Exhibit 12 (the police report) and there are some details of the defendant’s complaint that are substantial”.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority““Defendant charged with receiving stolen property, by his request for trial court to declare a mistrial, waived his constitutional right of jeopardy if such existed after jury was impaneled and sworn, notwithstanding that trial court originally denied the motion and did not reverse its former ruling and declare a mistrial until after defendant had subsequently moved for a directed verdict of not guilty for reason that State had failed to prove allegations of the information.””
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
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.