Hanes v. State’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

2 federal appellate · 46 state decisions

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

1. ““The federal courts, in considering the federal counterpart ( 28 U. S. C. § 2255 ) of our 60-1507 statute, have held that illegal arrest is not a ground for vacating a sentence. In Roddy v. United States, 296 F. 2d 9 (10th Cir.), it was stated: “ ‘Assuming that the failure to take the appellant before the United States Commissioner constituted an illegal arrest, an illegal arrest does not void a oonviction, nor is it grounds for a collateral attack upon a judgment of conviction.’ (p. 10.) “For statements and decisions of like import see Kristiansand v. United States, 319 F. 2d 416 (5th Cir.); United States v. Koptik, 300 F. 2d 19 (7th Cir.), cert. den. 370 U. S. 957 , 8 L. Ed. 2d 823 82 S. Ct. 1609 ; Plummer v. United States, C. A. D. C., 260 F. 2d 729 .” (p. 407.)”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Smith v. State

2. ““In this case plaintiff, through his own counsel, appealed from his conviction and raised such points as he considered had merit. They were answered adversely to him. In the matter presently before us plaintiff is not only attempting to raise trial errors which could have been, or were raised in his former direct appeal, but he also is attempting to convert this proceeding into a substitute for a second appeal. We have no question here of his right to raise trial errors which could have been raised upon appeal provided there were exceptional circumstances excusing the failure to appeal in the first place — for he did appeal.” (p. 518.)”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Minor v. State

3. ““A proceeding under K. S. A. 60-1507 cannot be used as a substitute for a direct appeal involving mere trial errors; but if the trial errors affect constitutional rights, they may be raised in the collateral proceeding, even though they could have been raised by direct appeal, provided there were exceptional circumstances excusing the failure to appeal. (Rule No. 121 [c] [3].)” (Syl. ¶ 2.)”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Davis v. State