State v. Clements’s Empirical Analysis
1992
Citation profile
2 district · 34 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 36 later decisions — most recently November 2010 · most notably State v. Peckham (1994), State v. Johnson (1994)
2 district · 34 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. Hall · State v. Nunn · State v. Clements · State v. Graham · State v. Jordan
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 36 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““We have consistently stated that appellate review of the admission of prior crimes evidence is ‘limited to whether the trial court abused its discretion or whether the trial court admitted clearly irrelevant evidence.’ State v. Blackmore, 249 Kan. at 671 . “The trial judge reasoned that State v. Damewood, 245 Kan. 676 , 783 P.2d 1249 (1989), controlled the case at bar. “. . . Damewood’s criminal activities followed a pattern of becoming acquainted with the 14-year-old and eventually asking him to assist in Damewood’s beekeeping operation. On each occasion Damewood arranged to pick up the 14-year-old under the guise of assisting in the beekeeping activity. Each time, Damewood drove the boy to a secluded area and forced the boy to engage in the sexual activities. Damewood, 245 Kan. at 678-79 . “Following K.S.A. 60-455, the trial court in Damewood permitted testimony by another boy regarding a previous similar encounter with Damewood. 245 Kan. at 679-80 . “Clements argues that because he denied committing the crimes, ‘intent is proved by proving the crimes’; thus, prior crimes evidence has no probative value. He also reasons that prior crimes evidence ‘is relevant to show plan only when that evidence demonstrates a preexisting design or scheme. . . . It is the existence of a structured design, not common features, which determines admissibility.’ “In Damewood , we dealt with arguments similar to those Clements raises here. See 245 Kan. at 681-82 . “Clements attempts to discount”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. State v. Tiffany
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.