24 Kan. App. 2d 580 - State v. Price’s Empirical Analysis
1997
Citation profile
10 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 10 later decisions — most recently October 2015
10 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 In Re the Attorney General, Stephan · State v. Rice · State v. Prouse · State v. Weigel · State v. Thompson
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 10 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““However, regardless of whether there is a contemporaneous objection lodged, the prosecutor and the trial judge have independent duties to protect a defendant’s right to a fair trial. In State v. Wilson, 188 Kan. 67, 73 , 360 P.2d 1092 (1961), the court stated: ‘It is, the duty of the county attorney in a criminal prosecution to see that the state’s case is properly presented with earnestness and vigor, and to use every legitimate means to bring about a just conviction, but he should always bear in mind that he is an officer of the court and, as such, occupies a quasi-judicial position whose sanctions and traditions he should preserve.’ “Then, addressing the duty of a trial judge, the Wilson court stated: ‘ “Where counsel refers to pertinent facts not before the juiy, or appeals to prejudices foreign to the case, it is the duty of the court to stop him then and there. The court need not and ought not to wait to hear objection from opposing counsel. The dignity of the court, the decorum of the trial, the interest of truth and justice forbid license of speech in arguments to jurors outside of the proper scope of professional discussion.” ’ 188 Kan. at 73 .” 24 Kan. App. 2d at 582.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. State v. Sperry
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.