State v. Ayers’s Empirical Analysis

1967

Citation profile

cited by 50 later decisions

states following

August 2009

most recently cited

50 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 50 later decisions — most recently August 2009 · most notably State v. Buggs (1976), 52 Ill. 2d 107 - People v. Canale (1972)

50 state decisions — followed in 11 states

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 Abbott Laboratories v. Gardner · Sheppard v. Maxwell · Estes v. Texas · Brulotte Et Al. v. Thys Company · 50 Cal. 2d 383 - People v. Wein

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

“"* * *. `[ K ] idnap ' means to take and carry away any person by unlawful force or fraud and against his will. We attached no other requirements such as a minimum distance of asportation. It is the fact, not the distance, of forcible removal of the victim that constitutes kidnapping. 1 Am.Jur.2d, Abduction and Kidnapping, § 18, p. 172. See, also, People v. Wein, 50 Cal.2d 383 , 326 P.2d 457 , cert. den. 358 U.S. 866 , 79 S.Ct. 98 , 3 L.Ed.2d 99 , reh. den. 358 U.S. 896 , 79 S.Ct. 153 , 3 L.Ed.2d 122 (any distance sufficient); People v. Loignon, 160 Cal. App.2d 412 , 325 P.2d 541 (opening door of automobile and pulling child into car); People v. Oganesoff, 81 Cal. App.2d 709 , 184 P.2d 953 (forcibly carrying victim from automobile into defendant's house).”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
e.g. State v. Clark · State v. Buggs
““The appellant filed a motion for change of venue and argues strongly that feelings ran high against the defendants in the town . . . The trial court took the question seriously, passed upon it and found that there existed no serious threat of violence or feeling against the defendants in general and that a fair trial could be had in Bourbon county. We know of no reason why the court should be reversed on this holding.” (l. c. 435.)”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
e.g. Davis v. State
““. . . We have carefully examined the majority opinion in Levy . The reasons stated therein for changing the previous New York interpretation .are not of sufficient persuasion to cause us to reject our construction of our statute announced ten years ago in Brown and consistently adhered to thereafter.” (State v. Ayers, supra, 198 Kan. at 472 .)”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
e.g. State v. Buggs

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.