State v. Holland’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

17 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 17 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““It has long been the rule of this court that questions reserved by the State in a criminal prosecution will not be entertained on appeal merely to demonstrate whether or not error has been committed by the trial court in its rulings adverse to the State. State v. Crozier, 225 Kan. 120, 123 , 587 P.2d 331 (1978); State v. V.F.W. Post No. 3722, 215 Kan. 693, 695 , 527 P.2d 1020 (1974); State v. Chittenden, 212 Kan. 178 , Syl. ¶ 1, 510 P.2d 152 (1973); State v. Kopf, 211 Kan. 848 , 508 P.2d 847 (1973); State v. Glaze, 200 Kan. 324 , Syl. ¶¶ 1 and 2, 436 P.2d 377 (1968). As we noted in Glaze , appeals on questions reserved by the State have generally been accepted where they involve questions of statewide interest important to the correct and uniform administration of the criminal law. The decisions have been of such a nature as to serve as a guide in future trials where the same or similar issues are likely to arise. In these cases we have frequently interpreted statutes, sometimes recently enacted, which had not previously been before this court. We have uniformly declined to entertain questions reserved, the resolution of which would not provide helpful precedent. See Chittenden, Kopf and Glaze.” 236 Kan. at 841 .”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. State v. Willcox