State v. Linn’s Empirical Analysis
1992
Citation profile
2 federal appellate · 48 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 50 later decisions — most recently June 2018 · most notably State v. Duke (1994), State v. Hill (1995)
2 federal appellate · 48 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. Gregory · State v. Lora · State v. Graham · State v. Baker · State v. Foy
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.
““An instruction as to the offense of aggravated burglary is defective unless it specifies and sets out the statutory elements of the offense intended by an accused in making the unauthorized entry. Under the circumstances here, the trial judge’s failure to state the specific underlying felony or felonies and their elements prevented the jury from rendering a lawful verdict and was an error of constitutional magnitude depriving the defendant of a fair trial.” 251 Kan. at 802 .”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. State v. Holt · State v. Hill““Instruction No. 2 “The defendant is charged with aggravated burglary. The defendant pleads not guilty. “To establish this charge, each of the following claims must be proved: 1. That the defendant knowingly entered a residence at 1310 S.E. Washington, Topeka, Kansas; 2. That the defendant did so without authority; 3. That the defendant did so with the intent to commit theft therein; 4. That at the time, there was a human being in the residence at 1310 S.E. Washington, Topeka, Kansas; and 5. That this act occurred on or about the 24th day of September, 1992, in Shawnee County, Kansas.” “Instruction No. 3 “If you find the defendant is not guilty of aggravated burglary, you shall consider if he is guilty of an attempt to commit the crime of aggravated burglary. “To establish this charge, each of the following claims must be proved: 1. That the defendant performed an act toward the commission of the crime of aggravated burglary; 2. That the defendant did so with the intent to commit the crime of theft therein; 3. That the defendant failed to consummate its commission; and 4. That this act occurred on or about the 24th day of September, 1992, in Shawnee County, Kansas. “The elements of aggravated burglary are set forth in Instruction No. 2.””
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. State v. Watson““In Count One, the defendant is charged with the crime of aggravated burglary. The defendant pleads not guilty. “To establish this charge, each of the following claims must be proved: 1. That the defendant knowingly entered die residence of [J. and J.J.], Route 1, Augusta, Kansas; 2. That the defendant did so without authority; 3. That the defendant did so with the intent to commit a felony or theft therein; 4. That at the time there was a human being in the residence; and 5. That this act occurred on or about the 14th day of February, 1990, in Butler County, Kansas.””
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. State v. Richmond
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.