Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 218 Kan. 136 - State v. Farris

State v. Farris’s Empirical Analysis

1975

Citation profile

50
cited by 50 later decisions
1
states following
March 2008
most recently cited

2 federal appellate · 48 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 50 later decisions — most recently March 2008 · most notably State v. McDaniel & Owens (1980), State v. Rueckert (1977)

2 federal appellate · 48 state decisions

2401975198019902000decided

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

Applies 18 U.S.C. § 111 (Federal Judiciary Protection Act of 2002)

Relies on United States v. Feola · State v. Bly · State v. Seely · State v. Calvert · State v. Bradley

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

  1. ““The admission of the entire file in this case was not a proper practice for the file contained much extraneous and irrelevant material which could be confusing to the jury. We cannot condone such a practice. An authenticated copy of the journal entry of conviction'should have been edited to remove reference to felony charges which were not established and upon which the state was not relying to prove the necessary element of prior conviction of crime. The practice of introducing an entire court file in such cases should be discontinued.” 218 Kan. at 139 .”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. ““Voluntary intoxication is not a defense to a criminal charge, but when a particular intent or other state of mind is a necessary element of the offense charged, intoxication may be taken into consideration in determining whether the accused was capable of forming the necessary intent or state of mind.””
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. ““Aggravated assault of a law enforcement officer is an aggravated assault, as defined in section 21-3410, committed against a uniformed or properly identified state, county or city law enforcement officer while such officer is engaged in the performance of his duty.””
    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.