Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 236 Kan. 79 - State v. Logan

State v. Logan’s Empirical Analysis

1984

Citation profile

85
cited by 85 later decisions
13
states following
August 2017
most recently cited

2 district · 81 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 85 later decisions — most recently August 2017 · most notably State v. Rice (1997), State v. Walker (2007)

2 district · 81 state decisions — followed in 13 states

3901984199020002010decided

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 28 U.S.C. § 455

Relies on Strickland v. Washington · ITT Gilfillan v. Clayton · United States v. United States Gypsum Co. · In Re the Attorney General, Stephan · SCA Services, Inc. v. Morgan

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

  1. ““The standard which federal courts use is whether the charge of lack of impartiality is grounded on facts that would create reasonable doubt concerning the judge’s impartiality, not in the mind of the judge himself, or even, necessarily, in the mind of the litigant filing the motion, but rather in the mind of a reasonable person with knowledge of all the circumstances. [Citations omitted.]” (Emphasis added.)”
    3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. ““He was well prepared, lodged numerous objections to evidence, and argued thoroughly his motion for a directed verdict and a motion in limine. Counsel’s misunderstanding of the law concerning defendant’s prior convictions and the circumstances under which the defendant could plead the Fifth Amendment were his only apparent errors. Additionally, it is not apparent the defendant would have been acquitted in the absence of his counsel’s error, since the jurors may have chosen to believe the State’s version of the events even if defendant’s credibility had not been shaken.” 236 Kan. at 83-84.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. ““The facts of this case show only that the trial judge’s son was on the staff of the Sedgwick County district attorney’s office as an assistant district attorney during die pendency of diis action. The facts do not support any finding whatsoever diat the defendant’s right to a fair trial was impeded, infringed upon, or denied by die connection here disclosed. We find that defendant was not prejudiced in any way, and his sentence and conviction should not be set aside on this ground.” 9 Kan. App. 2d at 355 .”
    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.