State v. Buckland’s Empirical Analysis
1989
Citation profile
54 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 54 later decisions — most recently September 2024 · most notably State v. Graham (1990), State v. Kingsley (1993)
54 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 Johnson v. Zerbst · Faretta v. California · Gideon v. Wainwright · Brewer v. Williams · Von Moltke v. Gillies
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 54 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““ ‘(i) has been clearly advised of his right to the assistance of counsel, including his right to the assignment of counsel when he is so entitled; “ ‘(ü) possesses the intelligence and capacity to appreciate the consequences of this decision; and “ ‘(iü) comprehends the nature of the charges and proceedings, the range of permissible punishments, and' any additional facts essential to a broad understanding of the case.””
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““ ‘It is the rule in this state that mere association with the principals who actually commit the crime or mere presence in the vicinity of the crime are themselves insufficient to establish guilt as an aider and abettor; however, when a person knowingly associates himself with the unlawful venture and participates in a way which indicates he willfully is furthering the success of the venture, such evidence of guilt is sufficient to go to the jury.’ ” State v. Buckland, 245 Kan. 132, 140 , 777 P.2d 745 (1989) (quoting State v. Burton, 235 Kan. 472, 477 , 681 F.2d 646 [1984]).”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. State v. Scott““Where defendant claims insufficiency of the evidence in a criminal case, an appellate court is required to review all the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution in determining whether a rational factfinder could have found the defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.” State v. Buckland, 245 Kan. 132 , Syl. ¶ 5, 777 P.2d 745 (1989).”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. State v. Damewood
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.