State v. Neil’s Empirical Analysis
1969
Citation profile
18 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 18 later decisions — most recently April 2004
18 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. Latham & York · State v. Seward · State v. Kimmel · State v. Law · State v. Dickson
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 18 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““Finally, the defendant asserts that prejudicial error was injected into the case through remarks of the county attorney in final argument to the effect that the defendant had not explained why he was in front of the McClure building. This contention must be rejected for several reasons. First, the closing arguments were not taken at the trial and the state categorically denies that such a statement was ever made. As a consequence, the alleged statement has not been preserved in the record and is not before us for consideration. (State v. Schroeder, 103 Kan. 770, 771 , 176 Pac. 659 ; State v. Smith, 171 Kan. 722, 725 , 237 P. 2d 388 .) Second, the record does not disclose that any objection was made to the alleged improper remarks. (State v. Fadler, 126 Kan. 664 , 271 Pac. 283 ; State v. Wyman, 198 Kan. 666 , 426 P. 2d 26 .) In the third place, even though the remarks were made, we would be unable to say that they had prejudiced any substantial rights of the defendant. . . .””
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Neil v. State““Although the record does not set out any direct evidence that the offenses were committed in Montgomery County, Kansas, the uncontradicted testimony shows they occurred in the city of Caney, Kansas. Under the provisions of K. S. A. 60-409 the trial court could take judicial notice that Caney is within the territorial boundaries of Montgomery County. Moreover, this court, under the provisions of K. S. A. 60-412, is empowered to take judicial notice thereof in this appeal.” (p. 476.)”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. State v. Roy
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.