State v. Pyle’s Empirical Analysis
1975
Citation profile
2 federal appellate · 87 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 89 later decisions — most recently January 2025 · most notably State v. Nicely (1988), State v. Grissom (1992)
2 federal appellate · 87 state decisions — followed in 11 states
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 Jackson v. Denno · In re Disbarment of Chopak · State v. Campbell · State v. Zimmer · State v. Masqua
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 89 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““Place of trial. Except as otherwise provided by law, the prosecution shall be in the county where the crime was committed.” K.S.A. 22-2602. “Crime committed in more than one county. Where two or more acts are requisite to the commission of any crime and such acts occur in different counties the prosecution may be in any county in which any of such acts occur.” K.S.A. 22-2603.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. State v. Duvaul · State v. Pencek“[I]f Goldie was removed from her home [in Kiowa County] and killed in another county, the removal was an act `requisite' to the commission of the murder; venue would still be proper in Kiowa county.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““We do not believe, however, that the statute [K.S.A. 22-3302] was intended to extend the privilege beyond the extent necessary to effectuate its purpose. It is designed as a shield, not a sword. If the defendant proposes to alter the roles of the examining doctors from competency examiners to insanity defense experts, he must comply with the disclosure provisions of the insanity defense statute. If they take the stand, they, like any other experts, are subject to cross-examination as to the basis for their opinions. If the opinions are based on statements made by the defendant, those statements must be revealed, and to that extent the statutory privilege is waived.” 216 Kan. at 443 .”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. State v. Brown
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.