State v. Lovelace’s Empirical Analysis
1980
Citation profile
35 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 35 later decisions — most recently March 2020 · most notably State v. McDaniel & Owens (1980), State v. Prouse (1989)
35 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 State v. Wilkins · State v. Thompson · State v. Chiles · State v. Coe · State v. Taylor
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 35 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““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. . . . 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.” (Citing State v. Lovelace, 227 Kan. 348 , Syl. ¶ 7, 607 P.2d 49 [1980]; and State v. Shultz, 225 Kan. 135, 138 , 587 P.2d 901 [1978].)”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“If you have no reasonable doubt as to the truth of each of the claims required to be proved by the State, you should find the defendant guilty.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““If an offense is committed upon any railroad car, vehicle, watercraft or aircraft passing within this State, and it cannot readily be determined in which county the offense was committed, the offender may be tried in any county through which such railroad car, vehicle, watercraft or aircraft has passed.” (Ill. Rev. Stat. 1985, ch. 38, par. 1 — 6(f).)”
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.