State v. Floyd’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

2 district · 25 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 27 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““[T]he district court held that a violation of this Wichita city ordinance could not be considered as a first or prior conviction to raise the classification of a subsequent conviction for possession of marijuana under K.S.A. 65-4127h(a) from a class A misdemeanor to a class D felony. In our judgment the district court held correctly. K.S.A. 1974 Supp. 65-4127b(a) is a penal statute and, as such, is to be strictly construed. (State v. Finley, 199 Kan. 615 , 433 P.2d 414 ; State v. Bishop, 215 Kan. 481 , 524 P.2d 712 ; State v. Mauldin, 215 Kan. 956 , 529 P.2d 124 .) “In State ex rel., v. American Savings Stamp Co., 194 Kan. 297 , 398 P.2d 1011 , we explained the rule of strict construction more specifically in the following language: ‘It is a fundamental rule that penal statutes must be strictly construed in favor of the persons sought to be subjected to their operations. . . . The rule of strict construction simply means that ordinary words are to be given their ordinary meaning. . . . Such a statute should not be read as to add that which is not readily found therein or to read out what as a matter of ordinary English ■language is in it. . . .’ (p. 300.)” (Emphasis added.) 218 Kan. at 766 .”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. State v. Dunn