State v. Garza’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

21 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 21 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “[g]iving assistance or encouragement to one who it is known will thereby engage in conduct dangerous to life is sufficient for accomplice liability as an aider or abettor as to crimes defined in terms of recklessness or negligence.”

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

2. ““The purpose of a preliminary examination is to determine whether it appears that a felony has been committed and that there is probable cause to believe the defendant committed the offense. If those findings are made, the magistrate will bind the defendant over for arraignment. K.S.A. 22-2902(3). In weighing the evidence the magistrate must determine (1) whether there is a reasonable ground of suspicion, supported by circumstances sufficiently strong in themselves, to cause a person of ordinary prudence and caution to conscientiously entertain a reasonable belief a felony has been committed and (2) if so, whether there is sufficient evidence to cause a person of ordinary prudence and caution to conscientiously entertain a reasonable belief of the accused’s guilt. State v. Bell, 259 Kan. 131 , Syl. ¶¶ 2, 3, 910 P.2d 205 (1996); see State v. Farmer, 259 Kan. 157 , Syl. ¶ 2, 909 P.2d 1154 (1996); State v. Bockert, 257 Kan. 488 , Syl. ¶ 2, 893 P.2d 832 (1995). When the State appeals the dismissal of a complaint, an appellate court’s review of an order discharging the defendant for lack of probable cause is de novo. See Farmer, 259 Kan. 157 , Syl. ¶ 1; Bell, 259 Kan. 131 , Syl. ¶ 5; Bockert, 257 Kan. 488 , Syl. ¶ 1.””

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

3. ““Under the doctrine of transferred intent, the fact that a reckless act was directed against one other than the person injured does not relieve die actor of criminal responsibility. It is generally held that such an act partakes of the quality of the original act, so that the guilt of the perpetrator of the crime is exactly what it would have been had the act been directed at the intended victim instead of another.” 259 Kan. at 829 .”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 28 Kan. App. 2d 700 - State v. Walker