Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 218 Kan. 736 - State v. Bowers

State v. Bowers’s Empirical Analysis

1976

Citation profile

10
cited by 10 later decisions
2
states following
December 1999
most recently cited

10 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 10 later decisions — most recently December 1999

10 state decisions

40197619801990decided

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. Gunzelman · State v. Stokes · State v. DeLespine · State v. Bright

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

  1. ““We think a fair analysis of the testimony of the defendant on direct examination discloses the evidence went beyond permissible bounds and opened the door for the state to cross-examine the defendant as to his prior conviction for burglary and larceny. The defendant’s testimony did more than let the jury know who he was so it could properly fit him into the pattern of events. It characterized him as devoutly religious, energetic, cultured, sophisticated, thoughtful and generous. As circumstantial evidence, those character traits are clearly relevant in regard to the probability defendant would commit an act of armed robbery. While it may be conceded that some such evidence was properly related to the alibi defense, we believe defendant’s testimony clearly reflects evidence of good character . ” State v. Bowers, 218 Kan. 736, 740 , 545 P.2d 303, 306 .”
    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.