State v. Mick’s Empirical Analysis
1981
Citation profile
40 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 40 later decisions — most recently January 2010 · most notably State v. Ruebke (1987), State v. Verge (2001)
40 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 Barker v. Wingo · Ohio v. Roberts · Ker v. People of the State of Illinois · Newhall v. Le Breton · State v. Peoples
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 40 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““ ‘the defendant at that time was represented by an attorney who availed himself of the opportunity to cross-examine the witness!,] . . . [t]he right of the accused to be confronted by his accusers was honored. The witness’ prior testimony bore sufficient indicia of reliability and afforded the trier of fact a satisfactory basis for evaluating the truth of the prior statement.’ ” Ruebke, 240 Kan. at 518 (quoting State v. Mick, 229 Kan. 157, 161 , 621 P.2d 1006 [1981]).”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. State v. Ruebke · State v. Young““if the judge finds that the declarant is unavailable as a witness at the hearing, testimony given as a witness in another action or in a preliminary hearing or former trial in the same action . . . when . . . the issue is such that the adverse party on the former occasion had the right and opportunity for cross-examination with an interest and motive similar to that which the adverse party has in the action in which the testimony is offered.””
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. State v. Vargas““The case of Barker v. Wingo, 407 U.S. 514, 532 , 33 L.Ed.2d 101 , 92 S.Ct. 2182 (1972), sets forth the interests of an accused which the constitutional right to speedy trial is designed to protect. This right is designed to prevent oppressive pretrial incarceration, to minimize anxiety and concern of the accused, and to limit the possibility the defense of the accused will be impaired.” 229 Kan. at 159.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. State v. Freeman
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.