Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 231 Kan. 161 - State v. Chears

State v. Chears’s Empirical Analysis

1982

Citation profile

57
cited by 57 later decisions
2
states following
September 2020
most recently cited

57 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 57 later decisions — most recently September 2020 · most notably State v. Atwood (1992), State v. Schoonover (2006)

57 state decisions

30019821990200020102020decided

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 Edwards v. Arizona · People v. Chessman · State v. Buggs · State v. Brown · Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. Et Al. v. Sawyer; And Sawyer, Secretary of Commerce, v. Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. Et Al.

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

  1. ““ ‘Multiplicity in criminal pleading is the charging of a single offense in several counts. . . . Multiplicity exists when the State attempts to use a single wrongful act as the basis for multiple charges. The general principles for determining whether charges are multiplicitous are these: “ ‘(1) A single offense may not be divided into sejDarate parts; generally, a single wrongful'act may not furnish the basis for more than one criminal prosecution. “ ‘(2) If each offense charged requires proof of a fact not required in proving the other, the offenses do not merge. “ ‘(3) Where offenses are committed separately and severally, at different times and at different places, they cannot be said to arise out of a single wrongful act.’ ” 231 Kan. at 162-63 .”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “the movement was sufficient to constitute kidnapping under the Buggs test.”
    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.