State v. Maxwell’s Empirical Analysis
1983
Citation profile
63 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 63 later decisions — most recently January 2025 · most notably State v. Hall (1990), State v. Williams (2012)
63 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 State v. Buggs · State v. Lora · State v. Stafford · State v. Estes · State v. Ortiz
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 63 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““[W]here the consent to enter ... is obtained by fraud, deceit or pretense the entry is not an authorized entry under the statute in that it is based on an erroneous or mistaken consent. Any such entry is unauthorized, and when accompanied by the requisite intent is sufficient to support a burglary or aggravated burglary conviction.” Maxwell, 234 Kan. at 397 .”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““4. The offense of murder in the first degree with which the defendant is charged in Count One of the information includes the lesser offense of murder in the second degree. If you do not find the defendant guilty of murder in the first degree, you shall consider if he is guilty of murder in the second degree. “To establish the charge of murder in the second degree, each of the following claims must be proved: “1. That the defendant killed Barbara Chmidling; “2. That such killing was done maliciously; and “3. That this act was done on or about the 24th day of January, 1974, in Leavenworth County, Kansas.””
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. State v. Mason““If the ulterior felony intended in a burglary is made clear at the preliminary hearing or by the context of the other charge or charges in the information the failure to allege the specific intended felony does not constitute reversible error. Such failure cannot result in surprise or be considered prejudicial to the defendant’s substantial rights at the trial when the intended felony was made clear in advance of the trial.” 213 Kan. at 188-89 ; see State v. Maxwell, 234 Kan. 393, 398 , 672 P.2d 590 (1983),”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. State v. Skelton
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.