Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 257 KAN 444 - State v. Green

State v. Green’s Empirical Analysis

1995

Citation profile

10
cited by 10 later decisions
3
states following
October 2010
most recently cited

10 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 10 later decisions — most recently October 2010

10 state decisions

40199520002010decided

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 Griffin v. Hilke · 66 Ill. 2d 616 - Aranda v. Hobart Manufacturing Corp. · State v. Donlay · 305 Pa. Super. 257 - Commonwealth v. Stasiak · State v. Tillman

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

  1. ““Here, the criminal activity drat prompted the pursuit originated in Ottawa. Although the Ottawa officers did not chase the defendants over the jurisdictional boundary, the pursuit was continuous, uninterrupted, and without delay. The officers immediately began pursuing the defendants upon receiving a report of the robbery and a description of the suspects and their direction of flight. The officers located the vehicle within seven minutes and chased it until it stopped. The officers continuously pursued the vehicle during the entire 28-minute period between the initial report of the crime and the ultimate stop and arrest of the defendants. There was no bréale in the officers’ efforts to apprehend the defendants or the defendants’ efforts to escape.” 257 Kan. at 455 .”
    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.