Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 197 Kan. 471 - State v. Darling

State v. Darling’s Empirical Analysis

1966

Citation profile

31
cited by 31 later decisions
3
states following
May 2014
most recently cited

31 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 31 later decisions — most recently May 2014 · most notably State v. Gunby (2006), State v. Bly (1974)

31 state decisions

100196619701980199020002010decided

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 Miranda v. State of Arizona Vignera · Escobedo v. Illinois · Johnson v. State of New Jersey · Henry v. State of Mississippi · State v. Little

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

  1. ““. . . This court has repeatedly held that if the evidence is otherwise admissible it is of no consequence whether the similar offense occurred prior or subsequent to the offense with which the defendant is charged. The time of the similar offense and its relation to the offense charged goes only to tire weight of the evidence. (State v. King, 111 Kan. 140 , 206 Pac. 883 ; State v. Wahl, 118 Kan. 771 , 236 Pac. 652 .)””
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. ““. . . If previous crime or conduct has a natural and logical tendency to establish the crime, or an element of the crime, for which the defendant is on trial, the evidence is admissible and ought to be admitted, as this court has many times held. Moreover, mere remoteness in time affects the weight to be given such evidence, rather than its admissibility. The question is — did the evidence tend to prove guilty knowledge? . . .””
    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.