Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 233 Kan. 286 - State v. Miles

State v. Miles’s Empirical Analysis

1983

Citation profile

34
cited by 34 later decisions
4
states following
April 2014
most recently cited

2 federal appellate · 32 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 34 later decisions — most recently April 2014 · most notably State v. Stevens (2007), State v. Sperry (1999)

2 federal appellate · 32 state decisions

1601983199020002010decided

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

Applies 21 U.S.C. § 801 (§ 101 of the Controlled Substances Act) · 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996)

Relies on Wainwright v. Sykes · Jackson v. Denno · Lisenba v. People of State of California · Rogers v. Richmond · Blackburn v. Alabama

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

  1. ““Kansas procedure does, consistent with the United States Constitution, require that appellant’s confession be challenged prior to or during the trial or not at all. The appellant’s failure to request a hearing or timely object to the admission of his confession waives his right to raise that issue for the first time on appeal unless the opportunity to object did not exist.””
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the dissent
  2. ““The propriety of inflicting severer punishment on second or subsequent offenders has been long recognized in this state. The offenders are not punished the second time for the earlier offense, but the repetition of criminal conduct aggravates their guilt and justifies increased penalties when they are convicted. The Kansas Supreme Court has recognized the validity of a habitual criminal act, State v. Collins, 215 Kan. 798 , 528 P.2d 1221 (1974); that such an act does not violate due process or equal protection, State v. Sully, 219 Kan. 222 , 547 P.2d 344 (1976); and is constitutional, State v. Levier, 226 Kan. 461 , 601 P.2d 1116 (1979). Prior convictions can be limited to those which were committed in the sentencing state or may include prior convictions of other jurisdictions.” 233 Kan. at 298 .”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the dissent
  3. ““Except as authorized by the uniform controlled substances act, it shall be unlawful for any person to manufacture, possess, have under his control, possess with intent to sell, sell, prescribe, administer, deliver, distribute, dispense or compound any opiates, opium or narcotic drags. Any person who violates this section shall be guilty of a class C felony, except that, upon conviction for the second offense, such person shall be guilty of a class B felony, and upon conviction for a third or subsequent offense, such person shall be guilty of a class A felony, and the punishment shall be life imprisonment.””
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the dissent

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.