Mortimer v. Evans’s Empirical Analysis
1963
Citation profile
48 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 50 later decisions — most recently August 2011 · most notably State v. Fink (1975), State v. Smith (1974)
48 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. Spaulding · State v. Bailey · State v. Rangel · State v. Powell · State v. Robertson
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 50 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“"`A preliminary examination differs from a trial. This court stated in In re Mortimer, 192 Kan. 164, 166 , 386 P.2d 261 (1963): "`"There is a difference between the quantum of proof essential to a binding over for trial and that required to convict at the trial. The guilt or innocence of a defendant is not adjudged at a preliminary examination, and it is not necessary that evidence upon which a defendant is held for trial should be sufficient to support a conviction. It is enough if it shows that an offense has been committed and that there is probable cause to believe the defendant is guilty."'" 252 Kan. at 620 .”
5 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. State v. Wilson · State v. Huser““. . . [A] preliminary examination is not a trial of a defendant’s guilt; it is rather an inquiry whether the defendant should be held for trial. Its principal purpose is a determination of whether a crime has been committed and whether there is a probability that the defendant committed the crime. Its main object is to apprise the accused of the nature of the crime or crimes charged against him, and to apprise him partially, at least, of the sort of evidence he will have to combat when he is subjected to formal prosecution in the district court. . . .” (Emphasis added.) (p. 166.)”
5 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. State v. Adams · State v. Wimberly
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.