State v. Beasley’s Empirical Analysis
1970
Citation profile
30 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 30 later decisions — most recently January 2004 · most notably State v. Smith (1999), Cooper v. Werholtz (2004)
30 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 Southern Railway Co. v. North Carolina · State v. Turner · State v. Latham & York · State v. Taylor · State v. Ricks
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 30 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““ ‘Beasley has cited no cases from this jurisdiction, and we know of none, which prohibits the imposition of a sentence as was imposed in the instant case. K.S.A. 21-107a applies when a person is “convicted a second time of a felony.” It is conceded Beasley had a prior felony conviction. In State v. Ricks, 173 Kan. 660 , 250 P.2d 773 it was held: “ ‘G.S. 1949, 21-107a is a law of general application and creates no exceptions with respect to any particular second or third felony previously committed.” (Syl. ¶2.) “ ‘And in the opinion it was stated: “ “The avowed purpose and salutary provisions of the habitual criminal law as a disciplinary measure for those whom previous conviction and punishment have failed to reform were stated early in State v. Woodman, [ 127 Kan. 166 , 272 Pac. 132 (1928)] and need not be repeated here.” (l.c. 661.) “ ‘In Johnson v. Crouse, 191 Kan. 694 , 383 P.2d 978 , it was said: ‘“. . . Our habitual criminal act merely provides a more severe penalty for the commission of a felony by an habitual criminal than by one who is a first time offender . . .” (l.c. 700.) “ ‘Contrary to Beasley s contention, the sentences are not to run concurrently. In fact, the sentence is to be doubled.’ 205 Kan. at 259-60 .” 237 Kan. at 56 .”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. State v. Patterson · State v. Baker““In order to bring hearsay evidence within the business records exception of K.S.A. 60-460(m), a witness who can identify the report and explain methods and procedures used in its production must testify, establishing that the records were made in the regular course of a business at or about the time of the act, condition or event recorded, and that the sources of information from which the records were made and the method of preparation indicate their trustworthiness.” [Emphasis added.]”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. State v. Smith · State v. Cremer
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.