Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 223 KAN 329 - State v. McCowan

State v. McCowan’s Empirical Analysis

1978

Citation profile

4
cited by 4 later decisions
1
states following
December 1987
most recently cited

2 federal appellate · 2 state decisions

Relationships

Relies on State v. Pruett

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

  1. ““The appellant is a resident of Wichita County, Kansas. On December 15,1975, he pled guilty to a charge of unlawful possession of a firearm in violation of K.S.A. 21-4204(l)(h), a class D felony. On April 12,1976, he was placed on probation in connection with this crime. The appellant was then advised by James Robison, his probation officer, on April 21 of the terms of his probation and his parole schedule. “On May 19, 1976, the appellant failed to keep his scheduled appointment with Mr. Robison. He testified he was in California with his wife visiting his sick mother-in-law. He stated he tried on at least three different occasions to contact Mr. Robison in order to tell him of his whereabouts. “Thereafter on May 24, 1976, Mr. Robison issued a ‘pick-up and detain’ order pursuant to K.S.A. 22-3716 against the appellant for parole violations. The alleged violations were failure to keep a scheduled appointment and traveling outside a fifty-mile radius of Leoti, Kansas. “Mr. Robison subsequently requested a cancellation of this detainer order on May 25, 1976, at approximately 3:43 p.m. In its place he requested a bench warrant be issued for apprehension of the appellant. During the interim between cancellation of the ‘pick-up and detain’ order and the issuance of the bench warrant, the death occurred. “Carl A. Simons, chief of police of the Leoti, Kansas, Police Department, stopped the appellant approximately one and one-half miles north of the city limits of Leoti. The appellant”
    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.