Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 248 Kan. 427 - State v. Leonard

State v. Leonard’s Empirical Analysis

1991

Citation profile

33
cited by 33 later decisions
2
states following
August 2020
most recently cited

33 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 33 later decisions — most recently August 2020 · most notably State v. Schoonover (2006), State v. Smallwood (1998)

33 state decisions

1401991200020102020decided

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. Prouse · State v. Lucas · State v. Fisher · 90 Mich. App. 169 - People v. Lovett · State v. Kopf

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

  1. “). We conclude the standard for considering a question reserved is met by this appeal. The State's reserved question does not require this court to analyze factual circumstances unique to the present case but raises a matter of statutory interpretation that would have widespread application. Further, the issue is one of first impression, is likely to arise repeatedly, and is important to the correct and uniform administration of the criminal law. Accordingly, we accept the State's question, finding it is”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the concurrence
  2. ““Leonard’s one act of driving the semi-truck through the crowd is the basis for both charges. This one act is not separated in time and distance. The one act caused the killing. Because there was only one act, the elements of the aggravated assault are not distinct from the homicide. The aggravated assault charges merged with the felony-murder charge.” 248 Kan. at 431 .”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the concurrence
  3. ““First-degree premeditated murder (or any lesser degree of homicide) could, of course, constitute the requisite underlying felony where, for instance, a defendant kills victim B during his or her commission of a homicide on victim A. The homicide of victim A could be the underlying felony for a felony-murder charge for the death of victim B.” 243 Kan. at 466 .”
    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.