Battrick v. State’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

1 district · 24 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 27 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““(a) Subject to the provisions of K.S.A. 60-1507, and amendments thereto, any person in this state who is detained, confined, or restrained of liberty on any pretense whatsoever, and any parent, guardian, or next friend for the protection of infants or allegedly incapacitated or incompetent persons, physically present in this state may prosecute a writ of habeas corpus in tire supreme court, court of appeals or the district court of the county in which such restraint is taking place. No docket fee shall be required, as long as the petitioner complies with the provisions of subsection (b) of K.SA. 60-2001 and amendments thereto. “(b) Except as provided in K.S.A. 60-1507, and amendments thereto, an inmate in the custody of the secretary of corrections shall file a petition for writ pursuant to subsection (a) within 30 days from the ¿late the action was final, but such time is extended during the pendency of the inmate’s timely attempts to exhaust such inmate’s administrative remedies.” (Emphasis added.)”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 28 Kan. App. 2d 356 - Holt v. Saiya

2. ““The fundamental importance of habeas corpus was emphasized by the Supreme Court in Johnson v. Avery, 393 U.S. 483, 485 , 21 L. Ed. 2d 718 , 89 S. Ct. 747 (1969) (a prisoner rights case). In Bowen v. Johnston, 306 U.S. 19, 26 , 83 L. Ed. 455 , 59 S. Ct. 442 (1939), the Court said: ‘[T]here is no higher duty than to maintain [the writ of habeas corpus] unimpaired.’ “. . . ‘ “The writ is not and never has been a static, narrow, formalistic remedy. Its scope has grown to achieve its purpose—the protection of individuals against erosion of the right to be free from wrongful restraints on their liberty.” ’ In re Habeas Corpus Application of Gilchrist, 238 Kan. 202, 206 , 708 P.2d 977 (1985) (quoting 39 Am. Jur. 2d, Habeas Corpus § 11, p. 185).” Battnck v. State, 267 Kan. 389, 392 , 985 P.2d 707 (1999).”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 51 Kan. App. 2d 733 - Manco v. State