State v. Hacker’s Empirical Analysis
1966
Citation profile
2 federal appellate · 23 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 25 later decisions — most recently December 1994 · most notably Hanks v. United States (1968), State v. Childs (1967)
2 federal appellate · 23 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 State v. Brown · State v. Browning · State v. Hockett · State v. Thompson · State v. Hardisty
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 25 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““Where separate and distinct felonies are charged in separate counts of one and the same information and all of the offenses charged are of the same general character, requiring the same mode of trial, the same kind of evidence, and the same kind of punishment, the defendant may be tried upon all of the several counts of the information at one and the same time, and in one trial. The fact that one of the counts with which the defendant is charged consists of the possession of a pistol after conviction of a felony, contrary to K. S. A. 21-2611, does not alter the foregoing rule. “Whether a defendant in a criminal action who is charged with several separate and distinct felonies may be tried upon all of the several counts of the information at one and the same time, and in one trial, rests .in the sound judicial discretion of the trial court.” (Syl. f f 3, 4.)”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. State v. Jones“"One of the essential elements of robbery in the first degree, where there is no violence to the victim, requires putting the victim in fear of some immediate injury to his person, but there is no exact standard by which to determine when an unlawful taking has been accompanied by putting the victim in fear. It is only necessary to show that the circumstances were such as to cause a reasonable man to apprehend danger, and that he could be reasonably expected to give up his property in order to protect himself. A causal relationship, however, must be established between acts of the defendant and the surrender of the property by the victim." (Syl. ¶ 4.)”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. State v. Childs
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.