Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 21 KANAPP2D 560 - State v. Bost

State v. Bost’s Empirical Analysis

1995

Citation profile

38
cited by 38 later decisions
1
states following
August 2019
most recently cited

38 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 38 later decisions — most recently August 2019 · most notably State v. Flores (2000), State v. Patton (2008)

38 state decisions

200199520002010decided

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. Donlay · Martindale v. Tenny · State v. Ortiz · State v. Moses · State v. Neer

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

  1. ““Effect on jurisdiction of a motion to modify/depart “Neither party addressed in their briefs, although requested by this court, whether a motion for departure is timely after the court has rendered sentence or whether a district court has jurisdiction to consider a motion to modify for a crime committed after July 1, 1993. Because these issues are significant and jurisdictional, the court will raise and consider them on its own initiative. “ ‘It is the duty of an appellate court to raise the question of jurisdiction on its own motion, and where the district court had no jurisdiction, the appellate court does not acquire jurisdiction over the subject matter on appeal.’ City of Overland Park v. Barron, 234 Kan. 522 , Syl. ¶ 1, 672 P.2d 1100 (1983). “ ‘ “This court has only such appellate jurisdiction as is provided by law. Jurisdiction to entertain an appeal is conferred by statute pursuant to article 3, § 3 of the Constitution of Kansas, and when the record discloses a lack of jurisdiction it is the duty of this court to dismiss the appeal.” [Citations omitted.]’ State v. Ortiz, 230 Kan. at 735. “Motion to modify “For crimes committed before July 1, 1993, the court’s authority to modify a defendant’s sentence came under K.S.A. 1992 Supp. 21-4603(4)(a). In conjunction with K.S.A. 21-4601, the Kansas courts allowed a defendant, under K.S.A. 1992 Supp. 21-4603(4), the opportunity to have his or her sentence modified when a motion was filed within the statutory 120-day period fol”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage
  2. ““(a) If sentence is imposed, the defendant may appeal from the judgment of the district court not later than 10 days after the expiration of the district court’s power to modify the sentence. The power to revoke or modify the conditions of probation or the conditions of assignment to a community correctional services program shall not be deemed power to modify the sentence. The provisions of this subsection shall not apply to crimes committed on or after July 1, 1993. “(b) If the imposition of sentence is suspended, the defendant may appeal from the judgment of the district court within 10 days after the order suspending imposition of sentence. The provisions of this subsection shall not apply to crimes committed on or after July 1, 1993. “(c) For crimes committed on or after July 1, 1993, the defendant shall have 10 days after the judgment of the district court to appeal.””
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  3. ““The bottom line is that the Kansas Legislature intended to give sentencing judges the discretion to impose incarceration or probation in border box cases and not require the court to establish substantial and compelling reasons in the form of mitigating or aggravating factors. ... As such, the imposition of incarceration or probation in a border box case is the imposition of the presumptive sentence for purposes of appeal.” 21 Kan. App. 2d at 570-71.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage

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.