Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 252 Kan. 98 - Taylor v. State

Taylor v. State’s Empirical Analysis

1992

Citation profile

57
cited by 57 later decisions
4
states following
June 2013
most recently cited

2 district · 55 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 57 later decisions — most recently June 2013 · most notably State v. Orr (1997), Bellamy v. State (2007)

2 district · 55 state decisions

320199220002010decided

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 Strickland v. Washington · United States v. Alaska · Gillespie v. Seymour · Chamberlain v. State · Wooderson v. Ortho Pharmaceutical Corp.

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

  1. “`accepts as true the evidence and all inferences to be drawn therefrom which support or tend to support the findings of the trial judge.'”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “"A trial court has no duty sua sponte to address a silent defendant and inquire whether he or she knowingly and intelligently waives the right to testify. An express waiver, on the record, is not necessary because a defendant’s conduct provides a sufficient basis from which to infer that the right to testify is waived. There is a danger that by asking a defendant if he or she is aware of his right to testify, a trial court may inadvertently influence a defendant to waive the equally fundamental right against self-incrimination.””
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “To require the trial court to follow a special procedure, explicitly telling defendant about, and seeming an explicit waiver of, a privilege to testify (whether administered within or outside the jury's hearing), could inappropriately influence the defendant to waive his constitutional right not to testify, thus threatening the exercise of this other, converse, constitutionally explicit, and more fragile right.”
    1 later decision 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.