State v. Jarvis’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

2 district · 9 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 11 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “"The evidence in the case discloses that on the 4th day of January, 1965, the Hinkle Oil Company through its president, J. B. Hinkle, assigned the title to a 1960 Silver Cloud Rolls Royce automobile (Kansas title No. B 1287303) for the sum of $6,000 to Richard J. Davis, also known as Richard Henry Jarvis, the appellant herein. The money was paid by the personal check of the appellant. Sometime later the appellant requested J. B. Hinkle to execute an affidavit that the title had been assigned to the appellant by mistake — that it should have been assigned to someone- else. J. B. Hinkle after consulting with his attorney refused to give the appellant such an affidavit. In the latter part of July, 1965, the appellant talked to Mrs. Muriel Upton, accountant for the Hinkle Oil Company, and she testified the appellant said: “ ‘The title needed to be changed, that it was incorrect; and of course, I wasn’t aware of that and would I make an affidavit to such and I said no.’ “In July, 1965, the appellant became manager-operator for Morris Kernick, doing business as Pertormance Motors, a licensed automobile dealer, operating under dealer’s license No. 2630. “Shortly after the appellant began work for Performance Motors, he drew a line through his name as purchaser on the assignment of title to the Rolls Royce automobile in question and typed above it the name ‘Performance Mtrs. Wichita, Kansas,’ He also forged or caused to be forged an affidavit by J. B. Hinkle that the assignment had b”

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

2. ““You are instructed that evidence has been admitted in this case to show the commission of the defendant of another offense similar to that charged in the information. . . . You are instructed that you are not to consider such evidence as the basis for an inference that he committed the crime charged in this case. Such evidence may be considered by the jury for the purpose of determining the motive, opportunity, intent, preparation plan, knowledge, identity or absence of mistake or accident.””

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

3. “. . The principle is well established that possession of a forged instrument by one who utters or seeks to utter it, or otherwise to realize on it or profit by it, without a reasonable explanation of how he acquired it, warrants an inference that the possessor himself committed the forgery or was a guilty accessory to its commission. . . (Citations omitted)”

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