State v. Burnett’s Empirical Analysis
1964
Citation profile
2 district · 16 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 18 later decisions — most recently June 1985
2 district · 16 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 Brulotte Et Al. v. Thys Company · State v. Ricks · State v. Woods · State v. Scott · State v. Spain
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 18 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““In 1955 the legislature repealed the mentioned statute [G.S. 1949, 62-1401] and enacted the following, which now appears as G.S. 1961 Supp. 62-1401: “ ‘The defendant and prosecuting attorney, with the assent of the court, may submit the trial to the court. All other trials shall be by jury, to. be selected, summoned and returned as prescribed by law.’ “The language of this statute is clear, and simply means that a jury may be waived in any criminal trial, including one for felony — provided the defendant, the state and the trial court, assent to such waiver.” 194 Kan. at 131 .”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. State v. Kinnell · State v. Siver““Now on this 6th day of November, 1963, the same being a regular judicial day of the September, 1963, term of this court, the above entitled matter comes on for trial upon the charges alleged in the Information of first degree kidnapping and forcible rape. The State of Kansas appears by Charles M. Warren, County Attorney, and Howard Hudson, Special Prosecutor. The defendant appears in person and by his attorneys, Walter B. Patterson and Frank O’Brien. “Thereupon, the defendant in open court pleads not guilty to the charge of forcible rape and not guilty to the charge of first degree kidnapping. Thereupon, the parties in open court stipulate and agree that a trial by jury shall be waived upon trial of the charge of forcible rape and the charge of first degree kidnapping and that said matter shall be submitted to the court. “It is further stipulated and agreed that heretofore companion cases arising out of the alleged incidents were tried in the above named court before a jury, to-wit: The State of Kansas, plaintiff, versus Gerald Lee Woods, defendant, No. 4134, and the State of Kansas, plaintiff, versus Allan Davis, defendant, No. 4133. “It is further stipulated and agreed that all of the evidence of all of the witnesses for the parties as presented in the trial of said two cases shall be considered as if the witnesses were personally present and presented such evidence subject to all objections, ruling on motions, motions, or other objections of every kind and nature presente”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. State v. Kinnell““. . . it is clear that the trial judge, in a case where the plea is hot guilty’ and a jury is waived — is empowered to fix the punishment. Who else could? . . .” (p. 131.)”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. State v. Lamb
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.