State v. Newman’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

2 federal appellate · 1 district · 76 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 81 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““We have concluded that the narrow interpretation of the term ‘suppressing evidence’ in K.S.A. 22-3603 set forth in Boling should be rejected and should not be followed in this state. We hold that the term ‘suppressing evidence’ as used in that statute is to have a broader meaning than the suppression of evidence which is illegally obtained. It should include not only ‘constitutional suppression’ but also rulings of a trial court which exclude State’s evidence so as to substantially impair the State’s ability to prosecute the case.” p. 34.”

   7 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. State v. Galloway · State v. Sayerwinnie

2. ““We are convinced that this broad interpretation of K.S.A. 22-3603 is consistent with the stated purpose of that section as expressed by the Judicial Council comment at the time it was adopted — that the section is intended to permit appellate review of trial court rulings on pretrial motions, which may he determinative of the case. [Emphasis in original.] We wish to emphasize, however, that the appellate courts of Kansas should not take jurisdiction of the prosecution’s interlocutory appeal from every run-of-the-mill pretrial evidentiary ruling of a district court, especially in those situations where trial court discretion is involved. Interlocutory appeals are to be permitted only where the pretrial order suppressing or excluding evidence places the State in a position where its ability to prosecute the case is substantially impaired.” (Emphasis added.)”

   4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. State v. Sayerwinnie · State v. Quinones-Avila

3. “"When a judge of the district court, prior to the commencement of trial of a criminal action, makes an order quashing a warrant or a search warrant, suppressing evidence or suppressing a confession or admission an appeal may be taken by the prosecution from such order if notice of appeal is filed within 14 days after entry of the order. Further proceedings in the trial court shall be stayed pending determination of the appeal." K.S.A. 2018 Supp. 22-3603.”

   3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. State v. Quinones-Avila · State v. Sales