State v. Munyon’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

8 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 8 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““(a) . . . [Communications found by the judge to have been between lawyer and his or her client in the course of that relationship and in professional confidence, are privileged, and a client has a privilege (1) if he or she is the witness to refuse to disclose any such communication, and (2) to prevent his or her lawyer from disclosing it, and (3) to prevent any other witness from disclosing such communication if it came to the knowledge of such witness (i) in the course.of its transmittal between the client and the lawyer, or (ii) in a manner not reasonably to be anticipated by the client, or (iii) as a result of a breach of the lawyer-client relationship. The privilege may be claimed by the client in person or by his or her lawyer, or if an incapacitated person, by either his or her guardian or conservator, or if deceased, by his or her personal representative.””

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. State v. Berberich · Cypress Media, Inc. v. City of Overland Park

2. ““ ‘The granting of a new trial for newly discovered evidence is in the trial court’s discretion. (State v. Larkin, 212 Kan. 158 , 510 P.2d 123 , cert. den. 414 U.S. 848 , 38 L. Ed. 2d 95 , 94 S. Ct. 134 .) A new trial should not be granted on the ground of newly discovered evidence unless the evidence is of such materiality that it would be likely to produce a different result upon re-trial. (State v. Hale, 206 Kan. 521 , 479 P.2d 902 .) The credibility of the evidence offered in support of the motion is for the trial court’s consideration. (State v. Anderson, 211 Kan. 148 , 505 P.2d 691 ; State v. Larkin, [ 212 Kan. 158 ].) The burden of proof is on defendant to show the alleged newly discovered evidence could not with reasonable diligence have been produced at trial. (State v. Lora, 213 Kan. 184 , 515 P.2d 1086 ; State v. Arney, 218 Kan. 369 , 544 P.2d 334 .) The appellate review of an order denying a new trial is limited to whether the trial court abused its discretion. (State v. Campbell, 207 Kan. 152 , 483 P.2d 495 ; State v. Anderson, [ 211 Kan. 148 ].)’ ””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Baker v. State