State v. Houck’s Empirical Analysis
1986
Citation profile
2 district · 51 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 53 later decisions — most recently June 2015 · most notably State v. Williams (2012), Folks v. Kansas Power & Light Co. (1988)
2 district · 51 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 Hensley v. Municipal Court, San Jose-Milpitas Judicial Dist., Santa Clara Cty. · Knight v. United States · State v. Wise · State v. McCorgary · State v. Stafford
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 53 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““The State has the responsibility to appropriately charge the accused with the crime it believes the accused has committed. If the evidence introduced at trial does not support a conviction of the offense charged, the accused cannot be found guilty of some other offense which the State did not see fit to charge. Here, the State did not prove the charges it brought against Houck and, therefore, the convictions of aggravated arson must be reversed.” 240 Kan. at 136 .”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““21-3718. Arson. (1) Arson is knowingly, by means of fire or explosive: “(a) Damaging any building or property in which another person has any interest without the consent of such other person; or “(b) Damaging any building or property with intent to injure or defraud an insurer or lienholder.” (Emphasis added.) “21-3719. Aggravated arson. Aggravated arson is arson, as defined in section 21-3718, and committed upon a building or property in which there is some human being.””
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority““An instruction is clearly erroneous when a reviewing court reaches a firm conviction that if the trial error had not occurred, there was a real possibility the jury would have returned a different verdict.” State v. Houck, 240 Kan. 130, 139 , 727 P.2d 460 (1986).”
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.