State v. Kearns’s Empirical Analysis
1973
Citation profile
24 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 24 later decisions — most recently October 1991
24 state decisions
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 Terry v. Ohio · United States v. Wade · Stovall v. Denno · Adams v. Williams · Chambers v. Maroney
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 24 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““. . . Whatever its deficiencies, the complaint had spent its force when a preliminary hearing was held and the magistrate made the necessary findings to bind appellant over for trial. For a full discussion of this proposition see State v. Addington, 205 Kan. 640, 643-5 , 472 P. 2d 225 . The district court had jurisdiction to try the appellant and correctly overruled his motion to discharge.” (p. 162.)”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“, . At a pretrial hearing on appellant’s motion to suppress Zimmerman testified that, while his glimpse of the two suspects at the police station may have jogged his memory, his identification of appellant was definitely based on what he saw in his store, and not on what he saw at the police station. . . . In addition, it is clear that such encounter as there was came about inadvertently, and not through any solicitation, ruse or scheme of the police. Zimmerman thought the information that appellant and Roberts were suspects came to him from a non-police connected source — he wasn’t sure. Further, although the exact time of the incident does not appear in the record it does appear that Zimmerman was at the police station ‘that evening,’ following appellant’s arrest at about 6:30 p. m. See State v. Kress, 210 Kan. 522 , 502 P. 2d 827 ; State v. Meeks, 205 Kan. 261 , 469 P. 2d 302 , and cases cited. These factors — the short interval of time, the inadvertance, the independent in-court identification — together lead us to conclude that Zimmerman’s identification of appellant was properly received.” (pp. 161-2.)”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. State v. Nesmith
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.