State v. McCowan’s Empirical Analysis
1979
Citation profile
38 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 39 later decisions — most recently July 2015 · most notably State v. Hebert (2004), State v. William (1991)
38 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
Applies 18 U.S.C. § 922 (Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act)
Relies on Burks v. United States · State v. Lamb · State v. Childers · State v. Voiles · State v. Turner
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.
““At the outset it should be pointed out that premeditated murder and felony murder are not separate or different offenses. The statute merely provides alternative methods of proving the deliberation and premeditation required for a conviction of first-degree murder under K.S.A. 21-3401. The statute provides: ‘Murder in the first degree is the killing of a human being committed maliciously, willfully, deliberately and with premeditation or committed in the perpetration or attempt to perpetrate any felony.’ (Emphasis added.) A prosecution under the felony murder rule merely changes the type of proof necessary to establish a violation of the statute. Proof that a homicide was committed in the perpetration of a felony is tantamount to premeditation and deliberation which otherwise would be necessary to constitute murder in the first degree. State v. Mauldin, 215 Kan. 956 , 529 P.2d 124 (1974); State v. Lamb, 209 Kan. 453 , 497 P.2d 275 (1972).” 226 Kan. at 759 .”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. State v. Ratley · State v. Wise““One who is in custody, serving one or more sentences, is not being held ‘solely’ by reason of a pending charge, and it is not required that trial on the pending charge be commenced within the 90-day period specified by the statute. However, such person is entitled to a speedy trial; that right is guaranteed by §10 of the Bill of Rights.””
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority““The court may permit a complaint or information to be amended at any time before verdict or finding if no additional or different crime is charged and if substantial rights of the defendant are not prejudiced.””
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. State v. Barncord
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.