Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 266 Kan. 1072 - State v. Applegate

State v. Applegate’s Empirical Analysis

1999

Citation profile

55
cited by 55 later decisions
8
states following
November 2021
most recently cited

53 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 55 later decisions — most recently November 2021 · most notably State v. Hunziker (2002), State v. Laycock (2009)

53 state decisions

3201999200020102020decided

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

Applies 18 U.S.C. § 3663

Relies on Gillespie v. Seymour · Saucedo v. Winger · State v. Iniguez · State v. Davidson · State v. Merrill

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

  1. “[t]he judge's order of restitution in a criminal action does not bar a victim from seeking damages in a separate civil action. Likewise, the judge, when sentencing a defendant in a criminal action, is not foreclosed from ordering restitution just because the victim has received compensation in a civil action.”
    4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. ““Restitution is not merely victim compensation but also serves the functions of deterrence and rehabilitation of the guilty. State v. Hinckley, 13 Kan. App. 2d 417, 419 , 777 P.2d 857 (1989). Restitution imposed as a condition of probation is not a legal obligation equivalent to a civil judgment, but rather an option which may be voluntarily exercised by the defendant to avoid serving an active sentence. [Citations omitted.] The sentencing judge has considerable discretion in determining the amount of restitution, but the court must, pursuant to K.S.A. 21-4610(d)(1), order restitution for the offense of conviction. [Citation omitted.]” 266 Kan. at 1075 .”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “[a] civil release of claims does not and cannot specifically preclude court-ordered restitution in a criminal case”
    2 later decisions 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.