State v. Yost’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

31 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 31 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““[L]egislative history was of no assistance in resolving how our statute should be interpreted. Neither do we come up with any full answer by considering rules of statutory construction. K.S.A. 21-4610 begins by giving the trial judge broad powers in probation matters. There can be no question but that the statutory intent is for broad interpretation. Also, the law is clear enough that ‘[t]he fundamental rule of statutory construction, to which all others are subordinate, is that the purpose and intent of the legislature governs when that intent can be ascertained from the statute.’ Kansas State Board of Healing Arts v. Dickerson, 229 Kan. 627, 630 , 629 P.2d 187 (1981). “Immediately, however, we face the fact that the broad grant of authority is ‘(1) Except as required by subsection (4).’ It is in section 4 that we have the limitation of restitution ‘to the aggrieved party.’ ””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 11 Kan. App. 2d 428 - State v. Jones

2. ““(4) In addition to any other conditions of probation or suspension of sentence, the court shall order the defendant to comply with each of the following conditions: “(a) Make reparation or restitution to the aggrieved party for the damage or loss caused by the defendant’s crime, in an amount and manner determined by the court, unless the court finds compelling circumstances which would render a plan of reparation or restitution unworkable . . . (Emphasis supplied.)”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 11 Kan. App. 2d 428 - State v. Jones