Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 242 Kan. 252 - State v. Massey

State v. Massey’s Empirical Analysis

1987

Citation profile

79
cited by 79 later decisions
4
states following
April 2019
most recently cited

79 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 79 later decisions — most recently April 2019 · most notably State v. Moncla (1997), State v. Whitesell (2000)

79 state decisions

3801987199020002010decided

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 Alder v. United States · 10 Cal. 3d 703 - People v. Sedeno · PruneYard Shopping Center v. Robins · 66 Cal. 2d 749 - People v. Wilson · People v. Anderson

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

  1. ““A defendant is presumed to be innocent until the contrary is proved. When there is a reasonable doubt as to his guilt, he must be acquitted. When there is a reasonable doubt as to which of two or more degrees of an offense he is guilty, he may be convicted of the lowest degree only.” (Emphasis added.)”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the concurrence
  2. ““We find no Kansas cases in-which improper testimony was given in violation of an order in limine. However, some jurisdictions hold defiance of an order in limine is not reversible error as long as the trial court instructs the jury to disregard the testimony. Michigan has found instructing the jury to disregard can cause even more prejudice to the defendant, and therefore holds a new trial is necessary regardless of limiting instructions. Texas has held there is no reversible error if the defendant did not object at trial. See Annot., 63 A.L.R.3d 311 , § 4.” 242 Kan. at 265 .”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the concurrence
  3. “consider alcoholic epilepsy to be only one of the many forms of epilepsy, most of which are idiopathic, meaning of unknown cause.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the concurrence

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.