State v. Sumner’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

26 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 26 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““This court has previously considered the question of standing to object to the infringement of the constitutional right to be secure in one’s person, house, papers, and effects against unreasonable searches and seizures. It has been held it is proper to require of one who seeks to challenge the legality of a search as the basis for suppressing relevant evidence that he allege, and if the allegation be disputed, that he establish that he himself was the victim of an invasion of privacy. To establish ‘standing’ this court has required 'the movant claim either to have owned or possessed the seized property, or to have had a possessory or proprietary interest in the premises searched. (State v. Edwards, 197 Kan. 146 , 415 P. 2d 231 ; Wheeler v. State, 202 Kan. 134 , 446 P. 2d 777 ; State v. Grimmett & Smith, 208 Kan. 324 , 491 P. 2d 549 ; State v. Williamson, 210 Kan. 501 , 502 P. 2d 777 ; State v. Masqua, 210 Kan. 419 , 502 P. 2d 728 .) “The state has the burden of proving that a search and seizure is lawful (K. S. A. 1971 Supp. 22-3216[2]), however, under the statute, the movant must allege he was in fact aggrieved by the search and that his constitutional right to be secure in his property has been violated. In short, the movant is required by 22-3216 ( 2) to allege facts showing wherein the search and seizure was unlawful and establish he personally was aggrieved by the alleged illegal search and that his rights were prejudiced thereby.” (pp. 803-804.)”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. State v. Gordon

2. ““The car which was the object of the search and which yielded the purloined property was McGuire’s, not the defendant’s. It was neither owned by Edwards nor was it in his possession or under his control. Edwards did not claim any interest in the car or in the property taken therefrom. Consequently, he may not be heard to protest the search.” (p. 147.)”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. State v. Roberts