State v. Shultz’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

54 state decisions

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

1. ““Rebuttal evidence is that which contradicts evidence introduced by an opposing party. It may tend to corroborate evidence of a party who first presented evidence on the particular issue, or it may refute or deny some affirmative fact which an opposing party has attempted to prove. ‘It may be used to explain, repel, counteract or disprove testimony or facts introduced by or on behalf of the adverse party. Such evidence includes not only testimony which contradicts the witnesses on the opposite side, but also corroborates previous testimony. The use and extent of rebuttal rests in the sound discretion of the trial court and its ruling will not be reversed unless it appears the discretion has been abused to a party’s prejudice.’ State v. Phipps, 224 Kan. 158, 161 , 578 P.2d 709 (1978).””

   3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. State v. Lovelace · State v. Richard

2. ““It has been the rule in this state for many years that nonexpert witnesses who are shown to have had special opportunities to observe may give opinion evidence as to sanity. See State v. Randol, 212 Kan. 461, 468 , 513 P.2d 248 (1973) and cases therein cited; State v. Truskett, 85 Kan. 804, 821 , 118 Pac. 1047 (1911); State v. Beuerman, 59 Kan. 586, 589 , 53 Pac. 874 (1898); and see K.S.A. 60-456. The weight to be given such testimony, as well as the weight to be accorded expert testimony, is for the jrny to determine. State v. Randol, 212 Kan. at 468 ; and see State v. Sanders, 225 Kan. 147 , 587 P.2d 893 (1978).” 225 Kan. at 137.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. City of Dodge City v. Hadley

3. ““Assuming, however, that the verdicts are inconsistent, mere inconsistency does not require a reversal. In State v. McCorgary, 218 Kan. 358 , 543 P.2d 952 (1975), cert. denied 429 U.S. 867 (1976), we said: “ ‘[T]he conduct of a jury is sometimes devoid of logic, and inconsistent verdicts may result. Even in cases where the two verdicts are irreconcilable the convictions will not be reversed on grounds of inconsistency. [Citations omitted.]’ ””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 17 Kan. App. 2d 59 - State v. Meyer