Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 196 Kan. 32 - State v. Salyer

State v. Salyer’s Empirical Analysis

1966

Citation profile

2
cited by 2 later decisions
1
states following
May 1994
most recently cited

2 state decisions

Relationships

Relies on Powell v. State of Alabama Patterson · Chandler v. Warden Fretag · James Graham v. State of West Virginia · Chessman v. California · State v. Messmore

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

  1. ““The validity of a statute which authorizes an enhanced penalty by reason of prior convictions has long been recognized. The theory is not repugnant to or in violation of the due process clause of the United States Constitution. (See, Graham v. West Virginia, 224 U.S. 616 , 56 L. Ed. 917 , 32 S. Ct. 583 ; and 25 Am. Jur., Habitual Criminals, § 3, p. 261, et seq.) A similar statute is K.S.A. 21-107a, commonly known as the habitual criminal statute. The validity of 21-107a has been upheld in many of our decisions. (Browning v. Hand, 184 Kan. 365 , 336 P.2d 409 , cert. den. 361 U.S. 926 , 4 L. Ed. 2d 240 , 80 S. Ct. 295 ; State v. Messmore, 175 Kan. 354 , 264 P.2d 911 ; and Scott v. Hudspeth, 171 Kan. 320 , 232 P.2d 464 .” 196 Kan. at 36 .”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority

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.