Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 228 Kan. 733 - State v. Case

State v. Case’s Empirical Analysis

1980

Citation profile

22
cited by 22 later decisions
2
states following
March 2001
most recently cited

22 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 22 later decisions — most recently March 2001

22 state decisions

120198019902000decided

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. Buckner · State v. Bradford · State v. Marks · State v. Foy · State v. Sanders

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

  1. ““Finally, appellant argues the court committed error in its sentencing. The State asked for the imposition of the habitual criminal act based upon four prior felony convictions. Appellant contends the court did not follow the requirements ofK.S.A. 21-4606 which provides criteria for fixing minimum terms. The record does not support the argument as the court fully complied with the statute. Appellant was sentenced to life in prison for each murder conviction, 30 years to life on the aggravated arson conviction, 10 to 30 years for aggravated burglary and one year for misdemeanor theft. The sentences are to run consecutively. In State v. Buckner, 223 Kan. 138 , Syl. 116, 574 P.2d 918 (1977), this court held: “ ‘When a sentence is fixed by the trial court, within permissible limits of the applicable statutes, the sentence is not erroneous and in the absence of special circumstances showing an abuse of judicial discretion will not be disturbed on appeal.’ The sentences imposed, while lengthy, are within the limits set by the statutes and considering the heinous nature and the severity of the crimes, we cannot say the trial court abused its discretion.” 228 Kan. at 739-40 .”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. ““A sentence which is within the statutory limits as set forth by the legislature will not be disturbed on appeal in the absence of special circumstances showing an abuse of discretion.” Syl. ¶ 8. “The discretion in imposing sentences which is lodged with a court is not a boundless, but a judicial, discretion. It is a discretion limited to sound judgment to be exercised, not arbitrarily, but with regard to what is right and equitable under the circumstances and the law.” Syl. ¶ 9. “Under the particular facts and circumstances of this case, the imposition of six consecutive sentences upon the defendant, who was the driver of the getaway car, and who had no prior criminal record, though within the limits of the statutes, constituted an abuse of judicial discretion, and such sentence is set aside, and the case is remanded with directions that the defendant be resentenced.” Syl. ¶ 10.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. ““ ‘Whether a prospective juror is qualified to sit in the trial of a case is a question for determination by the trial court and its ruling will not be disturbed unless it is clearly erroneous or there has been an abuse of discretion. [Citation omitted.]’ ” State v. Folkerts, 229 Kan. 608, 617 , 629 P.2d 173 (1981).”
    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.