State v. Mims’s Empirical Analysis
1998
Citation profile
57 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 57 later decisions — most recently July 2012 · most notably State v. Schoonover (2006), State v. Engelhardt (2005)
57 state decisions
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 State v. Moncla · State v. Faulkner · State v. Fike · State v. Aikins · State v. Dunn
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 57 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“"When reviewing challenges to jury instructions, we are required to consider all the instructions together, read as a whole, and not to isolate any one instruction. If the instructions properly and fairly state the law as applied to the facts of the case and a jury could not reasonably have been misled by them, the instructions do not constitute reversible error even if they are in some way erroneous. [Citation omitted.]" State v. Mims, 264 Kan. 506, 514 , 956 P.2d 1337 (1998).”
6 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““The Court has permitted the State to introduce evidence with regards to the baby food jar and tire prior incident concerning the baby food jar with [defendant]. “This evidence that has been admitted would tend to prove that the defendant committed a crime other than the present crime charged. “This evidence may be considered solely for the purpose of proving tire defendant’s intent or knowledge with respect to the second possession with intent to use drug paraphernalia charge. “That is the charge where drug paraphernalia is defined as an item used to contain, ingest, inhale, or introduce a controlled substance into the human body. “This evidence should not be considered by you for any other purpose.””
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority““In a criminal action, a trial court must instruct the jury on the law applicable to the defendant’s theories for which there is supporting evidence. When considering the refusal of the trial court to give a specific instruction, the evidence must be viewed by the appellate court in the light most favorable to the party requesting the instruction. [Citation omitted.]””
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. State v. Rogers
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.