State v. LaMunyon’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

10 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 10 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““ ‘The United States Constitution prohibits the legislative enactment of any ex post facto law. U.S. Const., art. I, §10. Two critical elements must be present for a criminal or penal law to be ex post facto: It must be retrospective, that is, it must apply to events occurring before its enactment, and it must disadvantage the offender affected by it. A criminal law disadvantages the offender if it punishes an act not punishable when committed, imposes additional punishment to that then prescribed, aggravates the crime, or alters the legal rules of evidence.’ ” State v. LaMunyon, 21 Kan. App. 2d 281, 285 , 898 P.2d 1182 (1995), aff’d 259 Kan. 54 , 911 P.2d 151 (1996) (quoting Lamb v. Kansas Parole Board, 15 Kan. App. 2d 606 , Syl. ¶ 8, 812 P.2d 761 [1991]).”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Roark v. Graves

2. ““In no case shall any order, judgment or decree of the district court, in any proceedings under the provisions of this code, be deemed or held to import a criminal act on the part of any juvenile . . . .””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. State v. LaMunyon

3. “sentencing court might take judicial notice of the journal entry in this case, which states that [the defendant's] criminal history category is D.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. State v. Roat