State v. Taylor’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

71 state decisions

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

1. “"[The California court] now recognizes that some `trivial' injuries are likely to result from any forcible kidnapping by the very nature of the act. It concludes that insignificant bruises or impressions resulting from the act itself are not what the legislature had in mind when it made `bodily harm' the factor which subjects one kidnapper to a more severe penalty than another. A significant policy reason for making the distinction is to deter a kidnapper from inflicting harm upon his victim, and to encourage the victim's release unharmed. It was, in that court's view, only unnecessary acts of violence upon the victim, and those occurring after the initial abduction which the legislature was attempting to deter. Therefore, only injuries resulting from such acts would constitute `bodily harm.' [Citations omitted.] "This refinement of the meaning of `bodily harm' fits within the limits of our own prior cases."”

   4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. State v. Sanders · State v. Moore

2. ““. . . The pickup truck was parked in a public parking lot with open access. The police had probable cause to believe that the vehicle had been used in the commission of a crime and contained valuable evidence relating to that crime. To preserve that evidence it was necessary that the truck be immobilized and protected so none of that evidence would be lost or destroyed. The seizure was clearly legal. See State v. Hoy, 199 Kan. 340 , 430 P. 2d 275 . If the police had probable cause to search the truck at the time it was discovered and defendant arrested, they had probable cause to impound it and search it at a later, more convenient time.” (217 Kan. pp. 710-711.)”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 3 Kan. App. 2d 635 - State v. Mitchell · State v. Boswell

3. “[A]ny touching of a victim against her will, with physical force, in an intentional, hostile and aggravated manner, or the projecting of such force against the victim by the kidnaper is 'bodily harm' within the meaning of the statute providing the death penalty if the person kidnaped suffered bodily harm.”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. State v. Sanders · State v. Moore