Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 224 Kan. 558 - State v. Foy

State v. Foy’s Empirical Analysis

1978

Citation profile

76
cited by 76 later decisions
5
states following
July 2007
most recently cited

2 federal appellate · 2 district · 72 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 76 later decisions — most recently July 2007 · most notably State v. Hall (1990), State v. Ruebke (1987)

2 federal appellate · 2 district · 72 state decisions

4401978198019902000decided

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 1 Cal. 3d 431 - People v. Wilson · State v. Childers · State v. Henson · State v. Turner · State v. Sullivan & Sullivan

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

  1. ““ ‘[A]n information in the ordinary form charging that a killing was done with malice aforethought, deliberation, and premeditation is sufficient to sustain a conviction of murder in the first degree committed in perpetration of a robbery or burglary. [Citation omitted.] Therefore, the fact that felony murder was not charged in the information does not preclude an instruction where evidence supports the instruction. [Citation omitted.]’ Foy, 224 Kan. at 566 .” Young, 277 Kan. at 594-95 .”
    4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “"It should be apparent that the Legislature, in including burglary as one of the enumerated felonies as a basis for felony murder, recognized that persons within domiciles are in greater peril from those entering the domicile with criminal intent, than persons on the street who are being subjected to the same criminal intent. Thus, the burglary statutes prescribe greater punishment for a criminal act committed within the domicile than for the same act committed on the street. Where, as here, the criminal act underlying the burglary is an assault with a dangerous weapon, the likelihood that the assault will culminate in a homicide is significantly increased by the situs of the assault. When the assault takes place within the domicile, the victim may be more likely to resist the assault; the victim is also less likely to be able to avoid the consequences of the assault, since his paths of retreat and escape may be barred or severely restricted by furniture, walls and other obstructions incidental to buildings. Further, it is also more likely that when the assault occurs in the victim's domicile, there will be present family or close friends who will come to the victim's aid and be killed. Since the purpose of the felony-murder statute is to reduce the disproportionate number of accidental homicides which occur during the commission of the enumerated predicate felonies by punishing the party responsible for the homicide not merely for manslaughter, but for murder (see Model Pena”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. ““Furthermore, prejudice must be established ‘not as a matter of speculation but as a demonstrable reality.’ ””
    2 later decisions 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.