Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 239 Kan. 417 - State v. Bowers

State v. Bowers’s Empirical Analysis

1986

Citation profile

45
cited by 45 later decisions
5
states following
June 2021
most recently cited

4 federal appellate · 39 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 45 later decisions — most recently June 2021 · most notably Chew v. Gates (1994), No. 91-55718 (1994)

4 federal appellate · 39 state decisions

20019861990200020102020decided

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 Hazeltine Corp. v. RCA Corp. · In Re the Attorney General, Stephan · Micheaux v. Amalgamated Meatcutters & Butcher Workmen of North America, Local P-94 · Edmund Smiley v. State of Kansas · State Ex Rel. Murray v. Palmgren

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

  1. ““[Olrdinary words are to be given their ordinary meaning. The phrase to be construed is ‘deadly weapon.’ In State v. Hanks, 236 Kan. 524, 537 , 694 P.2d 407 (1985), this court, in the context of an aggravated battery case, defined a deadly weapon as ‘an instrument which, from the manner in which it is used, is calculated or likely to produce death or serious bodily injury.’ We agree with the defendant that the subjective analysis used to determine whether a defendant is armed with a dangerous or deadly weapon in an aggravated robbery case is not applicable in the context of an aggravated battery case. That subjective test applies if the object is intended by the user to convince the victim that it is a dangerous weapon, and if the victim reasonably believes it is a dangerous weapon, then the object is a deadly weapon. See State v. Davis, 227 Kan. 174, 176 , 605 P.2d 572 (1980); State v. Robertson, 225 Kan. 572, 574 , 592 P.2d 460 (1979). In cases of aggravated battery, the victim’s perceptions of the instrument used by the perpetrator are irrelevant.” 239 Kan. at 422.”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. ““(4) In addition to any other conditions of probation or suspension of sentence, the court shall order the defendant to comply with each of the following conditions: “(a) Make reparation or restitution to the aggrieved party for the damage or loss caused by the defendant’s crime, in an amount and manner determined by the court, unless the court finds compelling circumstances which would render a plan of reparation or restitution unworkable . . . (Emphasis supplied.)”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. ““Aggravated battery is the unlawful touching or application of force to the person of another with intent to injure that person or another and which either: (a) Inflicts great bodily hann upon him; or (b) Causes any disfigurement or dismemberment to or of his person; or (c) Is done with a deadly weapon, or in any manner whereby great bodily harm, disfigurement, dismemberment, or death can be inflicted.””
    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.