State v. Randol’s Empirical Analysis
1979
Citation profile
2 federal appellate · 25 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 27 later decisions — most recently July 2020 · most notably State v. Fisher (1981), Panther v. Hames (1993)
2 federal appellate · 25 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 Roth v. United States · Winters v. People of State of New York · Nash v. United States · Champlin Refining Co. v. Corporation Commission · Cramp v. Board of Public Instruction of Orange Cty.
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 27 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““ ‘It is true that no hard and fast rule can be stated that would set an obvious standard of conduct in eveiy factual situation. No such standard is required. The fact that die prescribed standard of conduct in a criminal statute may be one of varying degree dependent upon die factual circumstances in each case does not make a criminal law unconstitutional. As Mr. Justice Holmes of the United States Supreme Court said in Nash v. United States, 229 U.S. 373 , 57 L. Ed. 1232 , 33 S. Ct. 780 (1913): ‘ “[T]he law is full of instances where a man’s fate depends on his estimating rightly, diat is, as the jury subsequentiy estimates it, some matter of degree. If his judgment is wrong, not only may he incur a fine or a short imprisonment, as here; he may incur the penalty of death. ‘An act causing death may be murder, manslaughter, or misadventure, according to the degree of danger attending it’ by common experience in the circumstances known to die actor. . . . ‘The criterion in such cases is to examine whether common social duty would, under the circumstances, have suggested a more circumspect conduct.’ ” ’ ” Fisher, 230 Kan. at 193 -94 (quoting State v. Randol, 226 Kan. 347, 351 , 597 P.2d 672 [1979]).”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. State v. Lara · State v. Fisher““[T]he killing of a human being by the operation of an automobile, airplane, motor boat or other motor vehicle in a manner which creates an unreasonable risk of injury to the person or property of another and which constitutes a material deviation from the standard of care which a reasonable person would observe under the same circumstances.””
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“more than the everyday minimal departures from the ordinary standard of care ... yet something less than ... reckless disregard.”
3 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.