State v. Robinson’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

70 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 70 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““The authority to search an automobile is not necessarily conditioned upon obtaining a search warrant or upon the right to arrest. It may be dependent on reasonable cause which an officer has for belief that contents of the vehicle offend against the law.” (Syl. ¶ 2.)”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. State v. Mall · State v. McMillin

2. ““The admissibility in evidence of a physical object is to be determined by the trial judge on the basis of its relevance and connection with the accused and with the crime charged. In order to justify its admission its identity must be shown to the satisfaction of the trial judge. “In 2 Wharton’s Criminal Evidence (11th Ed.) § 762 at page 1293 it is said: “ \ . . However, the prevailing view is that it is not necessary that such identification should positively and indisputably describe and relate to such evidence. If a question of fact as to the connection of the articles sought to be admitted with the defendant or the crime is raised, the evidence should be admitted for the determination of the jury. The lack of positive identification in such a case affects the weight of the article or substance as evidence, rather than its admissibility. . . .’ “We see no lack of positive identification in the present case. “Physical objects connected with the proscribed criminal act, or which serve to unfold or explain it, are generally exhibited in evidence whenever the criminal act is under investigation. (State v. Joseph Little, 201 Kan. 101 , 439 P.2d 383 ; State v. Jerrell, 200 Kan. 415 , 436 P.2d 973 .) “Although admissibility in the first instance rests in the judicial discretion of the trial judge, if the circumstances surrounding possession of an article are sufficient to infer relevance to the offense charged an issue of fact is presented. The final decision is left for the jur”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 4 Kan. App. 2d 389 - State v. Antwine

3. ““. . . However, the prevailing view is that it is not necessary that such identification should positively and indisputably describe and relate to such evidence. If a question of fact as to the connection of the articles sought to be admitted with the defendant or the crime is raised, the evidence should be admitted for the determination of the jury. The lack of positive identification in such a case affects the weight of the article or substance as evidence, rather than its admissibility.””

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