Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 216 Kan. 511 - State v. Cross

State v. Cross’s Empirical Analysis

1975

Citation profile

38
cited by 38 later decisions
1
states following
February 2024
most recently cited

38 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 38 later decisions — most recently February 2024 · most notably State v. Reid (2008), State v. Faulkner (1976)

38 state decisions

200197519801990200020102020decided

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. Bly · State v. Gunzelman · State v. Wright · State v. Davis · State v. Taylor

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

  1. “"`The determination of relevancy is a matter left to the judicial discretion of the trial judge. However, exercise of that discretion must not be abused. It must be based upon some knowledge of the facts, circumstances or nature of the prior offense. '" (Citing from State v. O'Neal, 204 Kan. 226, 231 , 461 P.2d 801 [1969].) (Emphasis added.)”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. ““Evidence of unrelated offenses is generally inadmissible under the statute. The requirements of the statute should be strictly enforced. To justify departure from this general inadmissibility the trial court should conduct a hearing in the absence of the jury to determine probative value as to one or more of the eight elements to which such evidence must be relevant, i. e. motive, opportunity, intent, preparation, plan, knowledge, identity or absence of mistake or accident. When in the discretion of the court there is a pattern, similarity or connection between the facts surrounding the prior offense and the one with which the accused is presently charged which has relevance in proving specific matters in issue, the prior conviction may then be admitted.” (p. 488.)”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “"Subject to section 60-447 evidence that a person committed a crime or civil wrong on a specified occasion, is inadmissible to prove his disposition to commit crime or civil wrong as the basis for an inference that he committed another crime or civil wrong on another specified occasion but, subject to sections 60-445 and 60-448 such evidence is admissible when relevant to prove some other material fact including ... intent ... knowledge ... or absence of mistake...." (Emphasis supplied.)”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority

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.