State v. Myrick’s Empirical Analysis
1957
Citation profile
44 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 46 later decisions (2 by the Supreme Court) — most recently March 2013 · most notably Spencer v. State of Texas a Bell (1967), State v. Gunby (2006)
44 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. Reed · State v. Osburn · State v. King · State v. Boswell · State v. Winchester
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 46 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“"Proof of an independent crime is admissible in the discretion of the court, and may be received in the state's case in chief, under proper instructions, if it is relevant to the proof of the guilt of the defendant for the crime with which he is charged. To be relevant it must prove or tend to prove identity of person or crime, to prove scienter or guilty knowledge, to prove intent, to show inclination or motive, to prove plan, scheme, or system of operation and to prove malice. ( State v. Myrick, 181 Kan. 1056 , 317 P.2d 485 .) The legislature recognized the exceptions to the general rule, as contended by defendant, in enacting chapter 303, section 60-455, Laws of 1963. The mentioned rules, exceptions and statutes were thoroughly discussed in the well -annotated opinion of State v. Wright, 194 Kan. 271 , 398 P.2d 339 ..." (l.c. 262.) (Emphasis supplied.)”
6 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. State v. Wright · State v. Lewis““Another long-established rule in this jurisdiction, which permits the state to refer to a defendant’s prior conviction is when he takes the stand and offers himself as a witness in his own behalf. In that event, he may be cross-examined with the view of impairing his credibility concerning previous offenses and subjects involving him in degradation and disgrace although they do not pertain to the charge for which he is then on trial. (State v. Pfiefer, 143 Kan. 536, 539, 56 P. 2d 442; State v. Story, 144 Kan. 262, 58 P. 2d 1090 ; State v. Osburn, 171 Kan. 330, 333 , 232 P. 2d 451 .) . . .””
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. State v. Roth““. . . However, we find the general rule to be that a statement in the nature of an admission or confession, to be admissible, must relate to the offense in question. . . .” (p. 1060.)”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. State v. Stephenson
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.