Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 245 Kan. 76 - State v. Wilcox

State v. Wilcox’s Empirical Analysis

1989

Citation profile

35
cited by 35 later decisions
1
states following
November 2023
most recently cited

35 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 35 later decisions — most recently November 2023 · most notably State v. Williams (1992), State v. Reed (1993)

35 state decisions

29019891990200020102020decided

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 State v. Keeley · State v. Doyen · Thomas Ex Rel. Thomas v. Board of Township Trustees · State v. Micheaux · State v. Kee

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

  1. ““Any person who obtains or attempts to obtain, or aids or abets any other person to obtain, by means of a williully false statement or representation, or by impersonation, collusion, or other fraudulent device, assistance to which the applicant or client is not entitled, shall be guilty of the crime of theft, as defined by K.S.A. 21-3701; and he shall be required to remit to the secretary the amount of any assistance given him under such fraudulent act. In any civil action for the recovery of assistance on the grounds the assistance was fraudulently obtained, proof that the recipient of the assistance possesses or did possess resources which does or would have rendered him ineligible to receive such assistance shall be deemed prima facie evidence that such assistance was fraudulently obtained.””
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. ““ ‘When there is a conflict between a statute dealing generally with a subject and another statute dealing specifically with a certain phase of it, the specific statute controls unless it appears that the legislature intended to make the general act controlling. [Citations omitted.]’ ” State v. Wilcox, 245 Kan. 76, 78 , 775 P.2d 177 (1989) (quoting lit re K.J., 12. Kan. App. 2d 188, 189, 737 'P.2d 874 [1987]).”
    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.