Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 235 Kan. 526 - State v. Sterling

State v. Sterling’s Empirical Analysis

1984

Citation profile

49
cited by 49 later decisions
2
states following
March 2019
most recently cited

49 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 49 later decisions — most recently March 2019 · most notably State v. Keeler (1985), State v. Shehan (1987)

49 state decisions

1601984199020002010decided

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. McDaniel & Owens · State v. Cantrell · State v. Farris · State v. Clingerman · State v. Rumble

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

  1. ““An act committed while in a state of voluntary intoxication is not less criminal by reason thereof, but when a particular intent or other state of mind is a necessary element to constitute a particular crime, the fact of intoxication may be taken into consideration in determining such intent or state of mind.””
    6 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “As used in the [pre-recodification] criminal code, the terms 'knowing,' 'willful,' 'purposeful,' and 'on purpose' are included within the term 'intentional.' "). Traditionally, "[t]he distinction between a general intent crime and a crime of specific intent is whether, in addition to the intent required by K.S.A. 21-3201, the statute defining the crime charged identifies or requires a further particular intent which must accompany the prohibited acts.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. ““Except as otherwise provided, a criminal intent is an essential element of every crime defined by this code. Criminal intent may be established by proof that the conduct of the accused person was intentional or reckless. Proof of intentional conduct shall be required to establish criminal intent, unless the statute defining the crime expressly provides that the prohibited act is criminal if done in a reckless manner.””
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority

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.