Ray v. State’s Empirical Analysis
1968
Citation profile
22 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 22 later decisions — most recently December 2000
22 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 United States v. Wight · Miller v. Hudspeth · Cooper v. State · Willis v. Hunter · Smith v. State
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 22 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““What was done by Mr. Knittle in the course of representing the movant was a matter concerning which Mr. Ray would normally have knowledge, die representation comprising, as it must, a series of events in which he had participated as Knittle’s client. It seems apparent, as we said was die case in Brown , that the trial court entertained some question concerning the movant’s representation, inasmuch as he proceeded to hear evidence touching upon the need for holding a plenary hearing in the movant’s presence. “Two of the three witnesses who testified touched on Knittle’s legal qualifications in a laudatoxy vein, even though they professed no independent recollection of what, if anything, he had done on behalf of his client. The movant, himself, being absent, could not be heard by way of reply; what his testimony might have been is not revealed in the record, although a letter to his counsel, reproduced in his brief, provides some indication. “Under the circumstances which appear in this case, we conclude that a full evidentiary hearing should have been held with movant present and permitted to testify.” 202 Kan. at 148-49 .”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Lujan v. State““(h) PRESENCE OF PRISONER. The prisoner should be produced at the hearing on a motion attacking a sentence where there are substantial issues of fact as to events in which he participated. The sentencing court has discretion to ascertain whether the claim is substantial before granting a full evidentiary hearing and requiring the prisoner to be present.” (1999 Kan. Ct. R. Annot. 198).”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Lujan v. State
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.