State v. Ruden’s Empirical Analysis
1989
Citation profile
4 district · 46 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 50 later decisions — most recently January 2020 · most notably State v. Holmes (2004), State v. Ninci (1997)
4 district · 46 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 Katz v. United States · Brinegar v. United States · Payton v. New York · United States v. Mendenhall · Texas v. Brown
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 50 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““A main component of the judgment of acquittal is its prohibition against subsequent prosecutions for the same offense based upon the Fifth Amendment protection against double jeopardy. 8A Moore’s Federal Practice ¶ 29.08 (2d ed. 1989). The Kansas cases that have allowed a motion for judgment of acquittal to bar an appeal have involved a situation in which the trial has begun and jeopardy has attached. In a jury trial, jeopardy attaches when a jury is impaneled and sworn. Crist v. Bretz, 437 U.S. 28, 38 , 57 L. Ed. 2d 24 , 98 S. Ct. 2156 (1978).” Buden, 245 Kan. at 99 .”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“"An individual may waive the requirement of a search warrant or consent to a search without a warrant, but the State has the burden to show such consent or waiver is voluntarily, intelligently, and knowingly given. State v. Jakeway, 221 Kan. 142 , Syl. ¶ 4, 558 P.2d 113 (1976). The existence and voluntariness of a consent to search and seizure is a question of fact that the trier of fact must decide in light of the totality of the circumstances; the trial court’s decision will not be overturned on appeal unless clearly erroneous. State v. Buckner, 223 Kan. 138, 144 , 574 P.2d 918 (1977). The State must prove voluntariness by a preponderance of the evidence. 223 Kan. at 143 ."”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. State v. Rexroat““The trial court’s observations of the demeanor of the officers and the defendant during testimony at the motion to suppress is essential to deciding if the State met its burden. The appellate court cannot decide a question of fact that is based upon conflicting testimony which requires an assessment of the demeanor and credibility of the witnesses.” State v. Ruden, 245 Kan. 95, 106 , 774 P.2d 972 (1989).”
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.