21 Kan. App. 2d 950 - State v. Walker’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

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

1. ““The literal interpretation of the statute would mean that if one pours gasoline on another person’s shrubs in front of their house and the shrubs are damaged, he or she has damaged another’s property with an explosive, gasoline. Pursuant to [the statute], the person would be guilty of arson. Similarly, if one throws an unlit stick of dynamite through the window of a building, he or she has committed arson. This is true even though the dynamite would not have exploded because the fuse was not lit. “The question for the jury to decide was whether Walker intended to ignite the .gasoline and damage the building by fire or explosion, not whether he intended damage by the pouring of gasoline around the building. .... “[W]e believe the unmistakable intent of the legislature was that the term ‘explosive’ was to be interpreted as ‘explosion’ and that tire use of the word ‘explosive’ was an error in terminology. [Citation omitted.]” 21 Kan. App. 2d at 953-55 .”

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