State v. Gobin’s Empirical Analysis
1975
Citation profile
38 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 40 later decisions — most recently April 2021 · most notably State v. Sullivan & Sullivan (1978), State v. Chism (1988)
38 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. Doyle · State v. Trotter · State v. McCollum · State v. Borserine · State v. Cory
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 40 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““(a) An attempt is any overt act toward the perpetration of a crime done by a person who intends to commit such crime but fails in the perpetration thereof or is prevented or intercepted in executing such crime. “(b) It shall not be a defense to a charge of attempt that the circumstances under which the act was performed or the means employed or the act itself were such that the commission of the crime was not possible.””
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““ ‘. . . On the one hand mere acts of preparation are insufficient while, on the other, if the accused has performed the final act necessary for the completion of the crime, he could be prosecuted for the crime intended and not for an attempt. The overt act lies somewhere between these two extremes and each case must depend upon its own particular facts. . . .’ ””
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““We note that in addition to the general criminal intent mentioned in K.S.A. 1973 Supp. 21-3201(2), the acts of theft proscribed by 21-3701 must be done with intent to deprive the owner permanently of the possession, use or benefit of particular property. “To ‘deprive permanently’ as defined in the general definitions section of the code means: ‘Take from the owner the possession, use or benefit of his property, without an intent to restore the same; . . (K.S.A. 1973 Supp. 21-3110[6][<a].) So it becomes apparent from the foregoing that the specific intent which must be established under the present charge of theft is an intent to take from the owner the possession, use or benefit of his property ($50.00 worth of swine) without an intent to restore the same.” (Emphasis added.) 216 Kan. at 280.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. State v. Cantrell
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.