State v. Warden’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

52 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 52 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““Judicial discretion is abused if judicial action is arbitrary, fanciful, or unreasonable, which is another way of stating that discretion is abused only if no reasonable person would take the view adopted by the trial court. If reasonable persons could differ regarding the propriety of the action taken by the trial court, it cannot be said that the trial court abused its discretion.” State v. Warden, 257 Kan. 94, 116 , 891 P.2d 1074 (1995).”

   6 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 22 Kan. App. 2d 47 - Ray v. Ponca/Universal Holdings, Inc. · State v. Penny

2. ““The general acceptance test of Frye governs the admissibility of expert scientific evidence in Kansas in those situations wherein such a test or standard is required. [Citation omitted.] As explained in State v. Warden, 257 Kan. 94, 108 , 891 P.2d 1074 (1995): ‘The general rule enunciated in Frye prohibits expert testimony concerning a scientific principle or discovery unless the principle is “sufficiently established to have gained general acceptance in the particular field in which it belongs.” Frye, 293 F. at 1014 . This court has adopted the Frye test concerning the admissibility of scientific evidence. [Citations omitted.] “ ‘The Frye test requires that, before expert scientific opinion may be received in evidence, the basis of that opinion must be shown to be generally accepted as reliable within the expert’s particular scientific field. If a new scientific technique’s validity generally has not been accepted as rehable or is only regarded as an experimental technique, then expert testimony based on its results should not be admitted into evidence. [Citation omitted.]’ “The party seeking to admit the scientific evidence has the burden of satisfying die Frye test by proving the reliability of the underlying scientific theory upon which the evidence is based and the acceptance of it in the appropriate scientific field. [Citations omitted.]””

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. State v. Shively · State v. Graham

3. ““A two-part test evaluates alleged violations of a motion in limine. First, there must be a determination whether there was a violation of the order in limine. Second, if the order in limine is violated, there must be a determination whether the testimony elicited in violation of the order substantially prejudiced the defendant. [Citation omitted.] The burden is on the defendant to show he or she was substantially prejudiced. [Citation omitted.]” State v. Warden, 257 Kan. 94, 125-26 , 891 P.2d 1074 (1995).”

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