Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 256 KAN 729 - State v. Goseland

State v. Goseland’s Empirical Analysis

1994

Citation profile

28
cited by 28 later decisions
1
states following
November 2018
most recently cited

28 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 28 later decisions — most recently November 2018 · most notably Hawkinson v. Bennett (1998), State v. Gilliland (2012)

28 state decisions

140199420002010decided

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 Rhode Island v. Innis · Dickerson v. Kansas Department of Revenue · Kansas State Department of Social & Rehabilitation Services v. Goertzen · State v. Lumbrera · State v. Clements

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.

  1. ““Here, the district judge, at the time of sentencing, already had ah the information available from the defendant’s previous evaluations at TCF. As previously noted, the two reports were identical, and the second report was dated less than two months prior to sentencing in the present case. There would be no reason for the judge to expect supplementation of the information available at sentencing. Under the unusual facts of this case, the failure to order a third TCF report was not an abuse of discretion, nor did the district court deny the defendant the opportunity to file a motion to modify his sentence.” 256 Kan. at 744 .”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. ““ ‘In recent years, tins court has consistently adhered to the rale in both civil and criminal cases that juror misconduct is not a ground for reversal, new trial, or mistrial unless it is shown to have substantially prejudiced a party’s rights. The party claiming prejudice has the burden of proof.’ ” 256 Kan. at 735 (quoting State v. Fenton, 228 Kan. 658 , Syl. ¶ 1, 620 P.2d 813 [1980]).”
    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.