18 Kan. App. 2d 179 - State v. Pendleton’s Empirical Analysis
1993
Citation profile
2 federal appellate · 12 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 14 later decisions — most recently January 2011
2 federal appellate · 12 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 Martindale v. Tenny · City of Newark v. Lucas · State v. Adee · Hughes v. Inland Container Corp. · Shutts v. Phillips Petroleum Co.
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 14 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““The legislative directive is clear. To obtain a conviction for a per se violation under K.S.A. 8-1567(a)(2), the State must show the alcohol concentration was tested within two hours of the last time a defendant operated or attempted to operate a vehicle. Further, our legislature has expressly provided in K.S.A. 8-1567(a)(1) that an alcohol concentration test administered two hours or more after a defendant operated or attempted to operate a vehicle may be competent evidence to support a conviction under that subsection.” State v. Pendleton, 18 Kan. App. 2d 179, 185 , 849 P.2d 143 (1993).”
1 later decision quote this exact passage““(a) No person shall operate or attempt to operate any vehicle within this state while: “(1) The alcohol concentration in the person’s blood or breath as shown by any competent evidence, including other competent evidence, as defined in paragraph (1) of subsection (f) of K.S.A. 8-1013, and amendments thereto, is .08 or more.””
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. State v. Sliva
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.