State v. Garner’s Empirical Analysis
1985
Citation profile
46 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 48 later decisions — most recently October 2014 · most notably State v. McAdam (2004), State v. Stevens (2007)
46 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. Lashley · State v. Cuezze, Houston & Faltico · State v. Cory · State v. Gobin · State v. Lucas
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 48 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““An information which charges an offense in the language of the statute or its equivalent is sufficient. Further, the exact statutory words need not be used in the information if the meaning is clear.””
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. State v. Bird · State v. Vakas““The nature of the crime of attempt was discussed in depth in State v. Gobin, 216 Kan. 278 , 531 P.2d 16 (1975). In Gobin , the court stated that the three essential elements for an attempt under K.S.A. 21-3301 are: ‘(1) the intent to commit the crime; (2) an overt act toward the perpetration of tire crime, and (3) a failure to consummate it. . . .’ p. 281. “The opinion quotes the comment of the committee on pattern jury instructions covering attempts as follows: “ 'A problem inherent in the law of attempts concerns the point when criminal liability attaches for the overt act. On the one hand mere acts of preparation are insufficient while, on the other, if the accused has performed the final act necessary for the completion of the crime, he could be prosecuted for the crime intended and not for an attempt. The overt act lies somewhere between these two extremes and each case must depend upon its own particular facts. . . .” PIK Criminal 55.01, p. 105.)’ p. 281. “The court in Gobin observed that it becomes apparent from reading the Kansas cases that no definite rule as to what constitutes an overt act for the purposes of attempt can or should be laid down. Each case must depend largely on its particular facts and the inferences which the jury may reasonably draw therefrom. The problem should be approached with a desire to accomplish substantial justice. It has been said that mere preparation is not sufficient. The accused must have taken steps beyond mere preparation by doing”
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.