Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 259 Kan. 3 - State v. Shaw

State v. Shaw’s Empirical Analysis

1996

Citation profile

36
cited by 36 later decisions
1
states following
July 2018
most recently cited

36 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 36 later decisions — most recently July 2018 · most notably State v. Edgar (2006), State v. Williams (2003)

36 state decisions

240199620002010decided

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 Boykin v. Alabama · State v. Ruff · State v. Scherzer · State v. Calderon · Trotter v. State

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

  1. ““(a) Before or during trial a plea of guilty or nolo contendere may be accepted when: (1) The defendant or counsel for the defendant enters such plea in open court; and (2) in felony cases the court has informed the defendant of die consequences of the plea, including the specific sentencing guidelines level of any crime committed on or after July 1, 1993, and of the maximum penalty provided by law which may be imposed upon acceptance of such plea; and (3) in felony cases the court has addressed die defendant personally and determined that die plea is made voluntarily with understanding of the nature of die charge and the consequences of the plea; and (4) the court is satisfied that there is a factual basis for the plea.” (Emphasis added.)”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. ““A factual basis for a plea may be satisfied by a complaint or information given or read to the defendant which sets forth the factual details and essential elements of the particular crime charged, by the evidence presented to the court by the prosecutor, by a statement of facts made by the defendant at the hearing, or if the judge accepting the defendant’s plea conducted the defendant’s preliminary examination.” (Emphasis added.)”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. ““While we do not approve of any failure to comply strictly with the explicitly stated requirements of K.S.A. 22-3210, it does not follow that every deviation therefrom requires reversal. If upon review of the entire record it can be determined that the pleas of guilty were knowingly and voluntarily made, the error resulting from failure to comply strictly with K.S.A. 22-3210 is harmless.” Trotter, 218 Kan. at 269 .”
    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.