Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 21 Kan. App. 2d 944 - State v. Boyle

21 Kan. App. 2d 944 - State v. Boyle’s Empirical Analysis

1996

Citation profile

4
cited by 4 later decisions
1
states following
November 2010
most recently cited

4 state decisions

Relationships

Relies on Wrenn v. Weinberger · Martindale v. Tenny · Dickens v. Snodgrass, Dunlap & Co. · In re Gilman · State v. Mountjoy

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

  1. ““(b) The complaint, information or indictment shall be a plain and concise written statement of the essential facts constituting the crime charged, which complaint, information or indictment, drawn in the language of the statute, shall be deemed sufficient. . . . The complaint, information or indictment shall state for each count the official or customary citation of the statute, rule and regulation or other provision of law which the defendant is alleged to have violated. Error in the citation or its omission shall not be ground for dismissal of the complaint, information or indictment or for reversal of a conviction if the error or omission did not prejudice the defendant. “(c) When relevant, the complaint, information or indictment shall also allege facts sufficient to constitute a crime or specific crime subcategoiy in the crime seriousness scale.””
    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.