Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 194 Kan. 471 - State v. Richardson

State v. Richardson’s Empirical Analysis

1965

Citation profile

110
cited by 110 later decisions
6
states following
March 2013
most recently cited

4 federal appellate · 105 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 110 later decisions — most recently March 2013 · most notably 39 Ill. 2d 325 - The PEOPLE v. Davis (1968), Smith v. Kansas (1966)

4 federal appellate · 105 state decisions

780196519701980199020002010decided

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 Townsend v. Sain · Escobedo v. Illinois · Miller v. Hudspeth · Dryden v. Rogers · Green v. Kensinger

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 110 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. ““(a) Motion attacking sentence. A prisoner in custody under sentence of a court of general jurisdiction claiming the right to be released upon the ground that the sentence was imposed in violation of the . . . laws of the State of Kansas, ... or that the sentence was in excess of the maximum authorized by law, or is otherwise subject to collateral attack, may at any time move the court which imposed the sentence to vacate, set aside or correct the sentence. “(b) Hearing and judgment ... If the court finds . . . that the sentence imposed was not authorized by law or is otherwise open to collateral attack, . . . the court shall vacate and set the judgment aside and shall discharge the prisoner or resentence him or grant a new trial or correct the sentence as may appear appropriate.” “(d) Appeal. An appeal may be taken to the supreme court from the order entered on the motion as from a final judgment on application for a writ of habeas corpus.””
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the dissent

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.