Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 259 Kan. 117 - State v. Wright

State v. Wright’s Empirical Analysis

1996

Citation profile

22
cited by 22 later decisions
1
states following
June 2018
most recently cited

22 state decisions

Relationships

Relies on Branzburg v. Hayes · Russell v. United States · Hartman v. United States · Wood v. Georgia · Piper v. Chris-Craft Industries, Inc.

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

  1. ““ ‘A bill of particulars serves the dual purpose of informing the defendant of the nature of the charge and the evidence against him to enable him to prepare his defense, and of enabling the defendant to avoid further prosecution for the same offense. The State is restricted in its proof to tire items specified in the bill of particulars. The purpose of this restriction is to prevent the State from charging the defendant with one crime and convicting him of something else.’ [Citation omitted.]” State v. Wright, 259 Kan. 117, 126 , 911 P.2d 166 (1996).”
    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.