Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 217 Kan. 726 - State v. Sherk

State v. Sherk’s Empirical Analysis

1975

Citation profile

13
cited by 13 later decisions
3
states following
November 2002
most recently cited

2 federal appellate · 11 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 13 later decisions — most recently November 2002

2 federal appellate · 11 state decisions

701975198019902000decided

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 Kent v. United States · Henry Ex Rel. Henry v. Bauder · State Ex Rel. Londerholm v. Owens · Templeton v. State · State v. Pruett

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

  1. ““. . . Any finding by a juvenile court hereunder, that a child would not be amenable to the care, treatment and training program available through the facilities of the juvenile court, may, if the order so provides, thereafter attach to any future act by such child which is cognizable under the juvenile code as an act of delinquency or miscreancy, and jurisdiction over such child shall be vested in any court of appropriate jurisdiction of the county of such child’s residence or of the county wherein he may be found.” (Now K. S. A. 1975 Supp. 38-808 [c].)”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. ““Under federal and Kansas equal protection constitutional provisions, a state statute may single out a class of persons for distinctive treatment only if the classification bears a rational relation to the purpose of the legislation. “The constitutional principle of equal protection does not preclude the state from drawing distinctions between different groups of individuals, but does require that persons similarly situated with respect to the legitimate purpose of the law receive like treatment.””
    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.