State v. Bird’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

1 district · 96 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 97 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““(a) Prosecutions in the district court shall be upon complaint, indictment or information. “(b) The complaint, information or indictment shall be a plain and concise written statement of the essential facts constituting the crime charged,' which complaint, information or indictment, drawn in the language of the statute, shall be deemed sufficient. The precise time of the commission of an offense need not be stated in the indictment or information; but it is sufficient if shown to have been within the statute of limitations, except where the time is an indispensable ingredient in the offense. An indictment shall be signed by the. presiding juror of the grand jury. An information shall be signed by the county attorney, the attorney general or any legally appointed assistant or deputy of either. A complaint shall be signed by some person with knowledge of the facts. Allegations made in one count may be incorporated by reference in another count. The complaint, information or indictment shall state for each count the official or customary citation of the statute, rule and regulation or other provision of law which the defendant is alleged to have violated. Error in the citation or its omission shall not be ground for dismissal of the complaint, information or indictment or for reversal of a conviction if the error or omission did not prejudice the defendant. “(c) When relevant, the complaint, information or indictment shall also allege facts sufficient to constitute a crime or s”

   8 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 14 Kan. App. 2d 94 - Zapata v. State · 15 Kan. App. 2d 734 - State v. Ribadeneira

2. ““(1) [T]he person testifying must be a third party; (2) the out-of-court statement about which the person will testify must have been made by one of the coconspirators; (3) the statement of the coconspirator must have been outside the presence of the accused; (4) the statement of the coconspirator must have been made while the conspiracy was in progress; and (5) the statement must be relevant to the plan or its subject matter.””

   4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. State v. Moody · State v. Sharp

3. ““As against a party, a statement which would be admissible if made by the declarant at the hearing if . . . (2) the party and the declarant were participating in a plan to commit a crime or a civil wrong and the statement was relevant to the plan or its subject matter and was made while the plan was in existence and before its complete execution or other termination.””

   3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. State v. Sharp · State v. Schultz