State v. Knight’s Empirical Analysis
1976
Citation profile
2 district · 36 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 38 later decisions — most recently January 2020 · most notably State v. Mustafa Abdulla Abu-Isba (1984), Manchenton v. Auto Leasing Corp. (1992)
2 district · 36 state decisions
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 28 U.S.C. § 144
Relies on Galella v. Onassis · State v. Gunzelman · People v. Dioguardi · Hulme v. Woleslagel · State v. Torline
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 38 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“'a written statement, under oath, sworn to or affirmed by the person making it before some person who has authority to administer an oath or affirmation.'”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““[W]here no ‘affidavit’ is filed a motion for change of judge under 20-311d ... is insufficient and must fail. This is in accord with our past decisions construing 20-311d .... In Hulme v. Woleslagel, supra, at 394 and Collins v. Kansas Milling Co., 210 Kan. 701 , 504 P.2d 586 , the court held an affidavit filed by the attorney and not by the party litigant was insufficient on its face. In State v. Timmons, 218 Kan. 741, 749 , 545 P.2d 358 , the defendant’s failure to timely file an affidavit of prejudice barred his assertion that the trial court erred in failing to recuse himself in response to his affidavit.””
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority““The general rule is that a threat otherwise coming within the purview of a statute, need not, unless the statute expressly so requires, be in any particular form or in any particular words, and it may be made by innuendo or suggestion, and need not be made directly to the intended victim. [Citations omitted.]” State v. Knight, 219 Kan. 863, 866 , 549 P.2d 1397 (1976); State v. Chambers, No. 96,370, unpublished Court of Appeals opinion filed May 9, 2008, slip op. at 23.”
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.