Call v. State’s Empirical Analysis
1965
Citation profile
90 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 90 later decisions — most recently March 2013 · most notably Baker v. State (1970), Van Dusen v. State (1966)
90 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 Bradford v. Commissioner · Miller v. Hudspeth · State v. Burnett · State v. Cook · 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 90 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“"We have held in State v. Burnett, 194 Kan. 645 , 400 P.2d 971 , that the right to an evidentiary hearing in proceedings brought under K.S.A. 60-1507 does not extend to those instances where the claims advanced are trivial, frivolous or insubstantial. In Webb v. State, 195 Kan. 728 , 408 P.2d 662, we further hold that a sentencing court is vested with discretion in ascertaining whether a claim made under the foregoing statute is substantial before granting an evidentiary hearing thereon and requiring the petitioner's presence." (p. 693.)”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Perrin v. State · Redd v. State““[W]hile the law requires legal and faithful representation on the part of counsel for an accused, either employed or court appointed, it does not guarantee the assistance of the most brilliant and experienced counsel . . (1. c. 692.) “The adequacy of services performed by an attorney on behalf of a client must be gauged by the totality of his representation, not by fragmentary segments analyzed in isolated cells. . . .” (1. c. 693.)”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Johnson v. State““. . . In the first place, whatever the statement may have been which was elicited from Call — and we are not informed of its contents — it was not introduced or used against him in this case. Call entered a plea of guilty. Consequently, whether the statement would or would not have been admissible in evidence, were it offered in evidence at a trial, is entirely irrelevant.” (1. c. 690.)”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. McCall v. State
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.