State v. Lumley’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

176 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 176 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “"Under K.S.A. 60-401(b), relevant evidence is evidence `having any tendency [in reason] to prove any material fact. For evidence of collateral facts to be competent, there must be some material or logical connection between them and the inference or result they are designed to establish.'" State v. Walker, 239 Kan. 635, 644 , 722 P.2d 556 (1986) (citing State v. Reed, 226 Kan. 519, 524 , 601 P.2d 1125 [1979])." State v. Lumley, 266 Kan. 939, 950 , 976 P.2d 486 (1999). Further, in regard to our standard of review of such evidence, we stated: "The admissibility of evidence lies within the sound discretion of the trial court. In State v. Sims, 265 Kan. 166, 175 , 960 P.2d 1271 (1998), the court stated that "`it is clear that our standard of review regarding a trial court's admission of evidence, subject to exclusionary rules, is abuse of discretion'" (quoting State v. Sims, 262 Kan. 165, 170 , 936 P.2d 779 [1997])." Lumley, 266 Kan. at 950 .”

   3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. State v. Deiterman · State v. Dieterman

2. “`it is clear that our standard of review regarding a trial court's admission of evidence, subject to exclusionary rules, is abuse of discretion'”

   3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. State v. Deiterman · State v. Dieterman

3. ““A verdict or finding shall not be set aside, nor shall the judgment or decision based thereon be reversed, by reason of the erroneous exclusion of evidence unless it appears of record that the proponent of the evidence either made known the substance of the evidence in a form and by a method approved by the judge, or indicated the substance of the expected evidence by questions indicating the desired answers.””

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 29 Kan. App. 2d 337 - State v. Gunn · 30 Kan. App. 2d 504 - State v. McIntosh