State v. Greenlee’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

3 district · 69 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 72 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “... the whole power of one department is exercised by the same hands which possess the whole power of another department, [that] the fundamental principles of a free constitution are subverted.”

   8 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. State v. J.D.H. · State ex rel. Hill v. Parsons

2. ““The discretion whether or not to prosecute has long been the sacred domain of the prosecutor and stems from the common law nolle prosequi. ‘A nolle prosequi is a formal entry of record by the prosecuting attorney by which he declares that he is unwilling to prosecute a case, or that he will not prosecute a suit further.’ 21 Am. Jur. 2d, Criminal Law § 512, p. 503. It has generally been held that ‘[i]n the absence of a controlling statute or rule of court, the power to enter a nolle prosequi before the jury is impaneled and sworn lies in the sole discretion of the prosecuting officer.’ 21 Am. Jur. 2d, Criminal Law § 514, p. 504.””

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. State v. Bird · State Ex Rel. Miller v. Richardson

3. ““(a) In determining whether diversion of a defendant is in the interests of justice and of benefit to die defendant and the community, the county or district attorney shall consider at least the following factors among all factors considered: (1) The nature of the crime charged and the circumstances surrounding it; (2) any special characteristics or circumstances of the defendant; (3) whether the defendant is a first-time offender and if the defendant has previously participated in diversion, according to the certification of the Kansas bureau of investigation or the division of vehicles of the department of revenue; (4) whether there is a probability that the defendant will cooperate with and benefit from diversion; (5) whether the available diversion program is appropriate to the needs of the defendant; (6) the impact of the diversion of the defendant upon the community; (7) recommendations, if any, of the involved law enforcement agency; (8) recommendations, if any, of the victim; (9) provisions for restitution; and (10) any mitigating circumstances.””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 45 Kan. App. 2d 409 - State v. Kacsir