State v. Miesbauer’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

16 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 16 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““ ‘The rules relative to determination of effective assistance of counsel were stated in Schoonover v. State, 2 Kan. App. 2d 481 , Syl. ¶¶ 2-4, 582 P.2d 292 , rev. denied 225 Kan. 845 (1978), and iterated in State v. Voiles, 226 Kan. 469, 470-471 , 601 P.2d 1121 (1979), as follows: “ ‘ “The right to effective assistance of counsel presupposes that counsel will be competent and capable of conducting a genuine defense on behalf of the accused. While the law does not guarantee the assistance of the most brilliant and experienced counsel, it does require honest, loyal, genuine and faithful representation on the part of counsel, be he retained or appointed. “ ‘ “Conduct of defense counsel which is so dishonest, incompetent or inadequate as to amount in practical effect to no counsel at all clearly violates a defendant’s Sixth Amendment right to counsel. However, conduct which amounts to a substantial deviation from that expected of a reasonably competent lawyer in the community, such that no lawyer of average ability would engage in it, and which causes the client’s, conviction or otherwise works to the client’s substantial disadvantage, is also a deprivation of the constitutional guarantee of ‘effective’ counsel. “In applying the foregoing standard to counsel’s performance, the effective assistance of counsel cannot be equated with the successful assistance of counsel. The adequacy of an attorney’s services on behalf of an accused must be gauged by the totality of his representat”

   3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Chamberlain v. State · State v. Kendig

2. ““The facts herein clearly do not establish any agency relationship between the private citizens and the sheriff. However, we must point out that the agency questions only arise when a law enforcement officer has enlisted a private citizen to search premises for evidence of a crime which the officer believes has been committed. In the case before us, there is nothing in the record indicating the sheriff suspected that foul play was the reason for either Miesbauers’ absence from employment. The discovery of the body was a surprise to all concerned and did not arise from any homicide investigation. The sheriff became involved by simply responding to a routine inquiry of a citizen concerned over the unusual absence of an acquaintance. After his initial visit to the premises he was concerned that the Miesbauer pets might be in the home and in need of care. The relatives went to the home because of their own concerns after being contacted by the sheriff. The locksmith merely assisted the relatives. By no stretch of the imagination can the conduct of anyone involved in the entry of the home be termed insidious or nefarious. Further, the entry hardly rises to the level of ‘search.’ As a matter of public policy such neighborly concerns of friends and relatives and considerate responses by law enforcement officers are to be encouraged rather than condemned. “We conclude there was no illegal search and seizure and the trial court did not err in denying defendant’s motion to suppress suc”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. State v. Smith

3. ““The law favors a trial, criminal or civil, taking place in the locality from which the litigation arises. This view is by no means new and dates well back into Anglo-Saxon common law. In Crocker v. Justices of the Superior Court, 208 Mass. 162 , 94 N.E. 369 (1911), the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court observed: “ ‘It was the common law that the indictment for a crime must be found and tried in the county where it occurred, and ordinarily this principle was applied with great strictness.’ 208 Mass, at 167. The federal and Kansas constitutions, Kansas statutes, and Kansas judicial pronouncements reflect the common law on venue. “Amendment Six of the United States Constitution reads: “ ‘In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed . . . .’ (Emphasis supplied.) Section Ten of the Kansas Bill of Rights provides: “ ‘In all prosecutions, the accused shall be allowed ... a speedy public trial by an impartial jury of the county or district in which the offense is alleged to have been committed.’ (Emphasis supplied.) “Consistent with the federal and state constitutions and the common law policy of a trial taking place in the locality, K.S.A. 22-2616(1) declares: “ ‘In any prosecution, the court upon motion of the defendant shall order that the case be transferred as to him to another county or district if the court is satisfied that there exis”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. State v. Wood