State v. Scott’s Empirical Analysis
1992
Citation profile
73 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 75 later decisions — most recently July 2021 · most notably State v. Grissom (1992), 28 Cal. 4th 767 - People v. Anderson (2002)
73 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 State v. Brown · State v. Hunter · State v. Dunn · State v. Garnes · State v. Zamora
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 75 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““In a criminal action, a trial court must instruct the jury on the law applicable to the defendant’s theories for which there is supporting evidence. When considering the refusal of a trial court to give a specific instruction, the evidence must be viewed by the appellate court in the light most favorable to the party requesting the instruction.” State v. Scott, 250 Kan. 350 , Syl. ¶ 4, 827 P.2d 733 (1992).”
6 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. State v. Trussell · State v. Shaw““(1) A person is not guilty of a crime other than murder or voluntary manslaughter by reason of conduct which he performs under the compulsion or threat of the imminent infliction of death or great bodily harm, if he reasonably believes diat death or great bodily harm will be inflicted up him ... if he does not perform such conduct. “(2) The defense provided by this section is not available to one who willfully or wantonly places himself in a situation in which it is probable that he will be subjected to compulsion or threat.” (Emphasis added.)”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““In order to constitute the defense of compulsion, the coercion or duress must be present, imminent, and impending, and of such a nature as to induce a well-grounded apprehension of death or serious bodily injury if the act is not done. The doctrine of coercion or duress cannot be invoked as an excuse by one who had a reasonable opportunity to avoid doing the act without undue exposure to death or serious bodily harm. State v. Milum, 213 Kan. 581, 582 , 516 P.2d 984 (1973). In addition, the compulsion must be continuous and there must be no reasonable opportunity to escape the compulsion without committing the crime. State v, Myers, 233 Kan. 611 , 664 P.2d 834 (1983).” State v. Hunter, 241 Kan. 629 , Syl. ¶ 10, 740 P.2d 559 (1987).”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. State v. Davis
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.