22 Kan. App. 2d 585 - State v. Lakey’s Empirical Analysis
1996
Citation profile
8 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 8 later decisions — most recently August 2011
8 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
Relies on State v. Gideon · Kelly v. Primeline Advisory, Inc. · State v. Jurdan · State v. Bell · 20 Kan. App. 2d 932 - State v. Richardson
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 8 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““ ‘The sentencing guidelines are based on two controlling factors: crime severity and criminal history of the defendant.’ State v. Fifer, 20 Kan. App. 2d 12, 15 , 881 P.2d 589 , rev. denied 256 Kan. 996 (1994). Consequently, if either the crime severity level or the criminal history score are in error, a defendant could challenge his or her sentence as being an illegal sentence under K.S.A. 22-3504. [Citation omitted.]” State v. Lakey, 22 Kan. App. 2d 585, 586 , 920 P.2d 470 (1996).”
1 later decision quote this exact passage
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.