State v. Toothman’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

52 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 52 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““ When analyzing a district court’s suppression of evidence, an appellate court reviews the factual underpinnings of a district court’s decision by a substantial competent evidence standard and the ultimate legal conclusion drawn from those facts by a de novo standard. An appellate court does not reweigh the evidence. The ultimate determination of the suppression of evidence is a legal question requiring independent appellate review.’ ” State v. Pritchett, 270 Kan. 125, 128 , 11 P.3d 1125 (2000) (quoting State v. Toothman, 267 Kan. 412 , Syl. ¶ 1, 985 P.2d 701 [1999]).”

   18 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. State v. Wig · State v. Gray

2. “'Quantity and quality are considered in the totality of the circumstances—the whole picture that must be taken into account when evaluating whether there is reasonable suspicion.' See State v. Toothman, 267 Kan. 412 , Syl. ¶ 5, 985 P.2d 701 (1999).”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. City of Wichita v. Molitor