State v. Ruff’s Empirical Analysis
1993
Citation profile
1 federal appellate · 2 district · 144 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 147 later decisions — most recently January 2024 · most notably State v. King (2009), State v. Lumley (1999)
1 federal appellate · 2 district · 144 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. Zamora · State v. Wilson · State v. Baker · Roda v. Williams · State v. Blackmore
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 147 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“'Ladies and gentlemen of the jury, do not allow this conduct to be tolerated in our county. . . . Send that message, ladies and gentlemen, come back with a verdict of guilty. Thank you.'”
7 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“"We have defined an “ ‘illegal sentence’ [as] either a sentence imposed by a court without jurisdiction; a sentence which does not conform to the statutory provision, either in the character or the term of the punishment authorized; or a sentence which is ambiguous with respect to the time and manner in which it is to be served.” ’ ” (Quoting State v. Scherzer, 254 Kan. 926 , Syl. ¶ 1, 869 P.2d 729 [1994].)”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. State v. Vanwey · State v. LaGrange“"The prosecutor is under a duty to insure that only competent evidence is submitted to the jury. Above all, the prosecutor must guard against anything that could prejudice the minds of the jurors and hinder them from considering only the evidence adduced. The prosecutor's statement was improper and transcends the limits of fair discussion of the evidence. The improper remark by the prosecutor in his summation to the jury would not have provided a basis for reversal of Ruff's conviction if the trial judge, rather than approving the remark after defense counsel objected, had instructed the jury to disregard the remark. Under these circumstances, a general instruction given prior to the improper statement that statements and remarks of counsel are not evidence and should not be considered as evidence does not protect the defendant's right to a fair trial." 252 Kan. at 636.”
2 later decisions 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.