State v. Williams’s Empirical Analysis

1992

Citation profile

cited by 91 later decisions

states following

November 2023

most recently cited

2 district · 79 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 91 later decisions — most recently November 2023 · most notably State v. Dunn (2016), State v. McAdam (2004)

2 district · 79 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. Fike · State v. Coberly · State v. Makin · State v. Wilcox · Seltmann v. Board of County Commissioners

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

“[s]exual intercourse, sodomy or any unlawful sex act”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
e.g. 17 Kan. App. 2d 512 - State v. Chandler · 18 Kan. App. 2d 435 - Carmichael v. State
“the legislature ... intended that aggravated incest, a crime committed by a person related to the victim, constitutes a less serious offense than when a similar prohibited act is perpetrated by a defendant against a child with whom he or she has no family relationship.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
e.g. State v. Toothman · State v. Fritz
““For the general statute versus specific statute rationale to be applicable to the two crimes, the indecent liberties statute must be viewed as a statute generally prohibiting certain sexual behavior and the aggravated incest statute as applying to the identical prohibited conduct by a person related to the victim. ‘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.’ State v. Wilcox, 245 Kan. 76 , Syl. ¶ 1, 775 P.2d 177 (1989). See State v. Makin, 223 Kan. 743, 748 , 576 P.2d 666 (1978). “A statute which relates to persons or things as a class is a general law, while a statute which relates to particular persons or things of a class is specific. Seltmann v. Board of County Commissioners, 212 Kan. 805 , Syl. ¶ 2.” State v. Williams, 250 Kan. 730, 736 , 829 P.2d 892 (1992).”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
e.g. 18 Kan. App. 2d 338 - State v. Daniels · Beem v. McKune

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.