State v. Wacker’s Empirical Analysis
1993
Citation profile
28
cited by 28 later decisions
2
states following
July 2000
most recently cited
28 state decisions
Relationships
Relies on Miranda v. State of Arizona Vignera · Mullins Coal Co. v. Director · State v. Ruebke · State v. Lumbrera · State v. Garcia
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 28 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““The determination of whether to change venue lies within the sound discretion of the trial court and that determination will not be disturbed on appeal absent a showing of prejudice to the substantial rights of the defendant, with the burden upon the defendant to show prejudice in the community, not as a matter of speculation, but as a demonstrable reality. To show prejudice to the substantial rights of the defendant, there must be more than speculation that the defendant did not receive a fair trial. The State is not required to produce evidence refuting that of the defendant.” State v. Wacker, 253 Kan. 664 , Syl. ¶ 6, 861 P.2d 1272 (1993).”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. State v. Clemons““In a criminal case, evidence not disclosed to the defendant before trial is not suppressed or withheld by tire State if the defendant has personal knowledge thereof or if the facts become available to him during trial and he is not prejudiced in defending against them.“ 253 Kan. 664 , Syl. ¶ 5.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. State v. Lumbrera
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.