Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 222 Kan. 709 - White v. State

White v. State’s Empirical Analysis

1977

Citation profile

39
cited by 39 later decisions
3
states following
November 2024
most recently cited

1 federal appellate · 2 district · 36 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 39 later decisions — most recently November 2024 · most notably Carmichael v. State (1994), State v. Shaw (1996)

1 federal appellate · 2 district · 36 state decisions

170197719801990200020102020decided

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 Boykin v. Alabama · McCarthy v. United States · Widener v. State · Dunlap v. State · State v. Kinnell

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

  1. ““Notwithstanding the express desire of the accused to enter a plea of guilty in a felony case, the court should not enter a judgment upon such a plea without personally making such inquiry of the accused as may satisfy it that there is a factual basis for the plea.””
    3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. ““[A] proceeding under section 60-1507 cannot ordinarily be used as a substitute for direct appeal involving mere trial errors or as a substitute for a second appeal. Mere trial errors are to be corrected by direct appeal, but trial errors affecting constitutional rights may be raised even though the error could have been raised on appeal, provided there were exceptional circumstances excusing the failure to appeal.””
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “misunderstood the stipulation, or that he had insufficient time to discuss it with counsel, or that he was unaware of its effect, or that he entered into it other than freely, understandingly and voluntarily. He does not contend that he was uninformed, overreached, coerced, defrauded, or victimized in any way.”
    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.