State v. Rush’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

30 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 30 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““In Count One, the defendant is charged with the crime of aggravated burglary. The defendant pleads not guilty. “To establish this charge, each of the following claims must be proved: 1. That the defendant knowingly entered die residence of [J. and J.J.], Route 1, Augusta, Kansas; 2. That the defendant did so without authority; 3. That the defendant did so with the intent to commit a felony or theft therein; 4. That at the time there was a human being in the residence; and 5. That this act occurred on or about the 14th day of February, 1990, in Butler County, Kansas.””

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

2. ““The criminal trespass statute is not a model of clarity, and it could be said that the notice provision under the statute seems to be superfluous because the statute also requires knowing unauthorized entry. Our responsibility, however, is to give effect to all portions of the statute and reconcile different provisions ‘in a way that makes them consistent, harmonious, and sensible.’ [Citation omitted.] If reasonably possible, this court is to avoid statutory constructions that make part of a statute surplusage.” State v. Rush, 255 Kan. 672, 677 , 877 P.2d 386 (1994).”

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