State v. Myers’s Empirical Analysis
1974
Citation profile
24 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 24 later decisions — most recently May 1994
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 State v. Morgan · State v. Nading · State v. Law · State v. Pappan · State v. Dye
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.
““Due process of law requires that a defendant have a reasonable notice that the habitual criminal law may be invoked. (Jackson v. State, 204 Kan. 841 , 466 P. 2d 305 ). The state is not required to give an accused notice of its intention to invoke the habitual criminal act prior to trial or prior to submission of a case to a jury. Reasonable notice is all that is required. (State v. Pappan, 206 Kan. 195 , 477 P. 2d 989 ). The purpose of requiring such notice is to afford the defendant time to prepare his defense and show cause why the act should not be invoked (State v. Bell, 205 Kan. 380 , 469 P. 2d 448 ). No particular form of notice is necessary and such notice may be waived (Lieser v. State, 199 Kan. 503, 430 P. 2d 243 ).” (p. 605.)”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. State v. Powell““The instructions complained of, although somewhat overbroad in comparison with those recommended in PIK, Criminal, are not clearly erroneous. Moreover, as in the point with respect to the juror’s comments concerning appellant’s failure to testify, the alleged misconduct, if it could be deemed to rise to that level, was not extrinsic but related rather to the reasoning process by means of which certain jurors arrived at and acquiesced in the verdict. That verdict may not be so impugned and the trial court properly excluded the affidavits and denied new trial on this ground.” (p. 603.)”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. State v. Childers““ ‘A juror cannot he heard to impeach his verdict by saving that in the deliberation he or any other member of the jury took into consideration the matter of the defendant having failed to testify in his own behalf when the jury was instructed not to do so.’ ” State v. Myers, 215 Kan. 600, 602 , 527 P.2d 1053 (1974), quoting State v. Dye, 148 Kan. 421 , 83 P.2d 113 (1938).”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. State v. Mitchell
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.