Chiles v. State’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

5 federal appellate · 5 district · 83 state decisions

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

1. ““With a rational basis review, relevance is the only relationship required between the classification and die objective. The constitutional safeguard is offended only if die classification rests on grounds wholly irrelevant to the achievement of the State’s objective. Insofar as the objective is concerned, a statutory discrimination will not be set aside if any set of facts reasonably may be conceived to justify it. The legislature’s purpose in creating the classification need not be established. The classification must, however, bear a rational relationship to a legitimate objective. The rational basis test contains two substantive limitations on legislative choice: (1) legislative enactments must implicate legitimate goals, and (2) the means chosen by the legislature must bear a rational relationship to diose goals. These limitations amount to a prescription that all persons similarly situated should be treated alike.” 254 Kan. at 895 .”

   3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 24 Kan. App. 2d 441 - State v. Standifer · State v. Roseborough

2. ““The legislature has tire exclusive role of providing for the punishment of convicted criminals. State v. Reed, 248 Kan. 792, 798 , 811 P.2d 1163 (1991). It follows that the legislature has the power to enact legislation reducing the punishment of convicted criminals or granting leniency to them. The legislative power to punish convicted criminals is controlled only by tire Constitutions of tire United States and of tire State of Kansas.” Chiles v. State, 254 Kan. 888, 897 , 869 P.2d 707 (1994).”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. State v. Reed

3. ““The general rule of statutory construction is that a statute will operate prospectively unless its language clearly indicates the legislature intended that it operate retrospectively. This rule is modified where the statutory change is merely procedural or remedial in nature and does not prejudicially affect the substantive rights of the parties.” Chiles v. State, 254 Kan. 888 , Syl. ¶ 5, 869 P.2d 707 , cert. denied 130 L. Ed. 2d 88 (1994).”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 23 Kan. App. 2d 30 - Ryco Packaging Corp. v. Chapelle International, Ltd.