State v. Tiffany’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

40 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 40 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““ “Whether the trial court’s findings constitute substantial and compelling reasons for departure is a question of law. The question in this analysis is twofold. First, is a particular reason given by the sentencing court a valid departure factor? Second, are the reasons, as a whole, substantial and compelling reasons for departure in a given case? Reasons which may in one case justify departure may not in all cases justify a departure. Rather, the inquiry must evaluate the crime and the departure factors as a whole to determine whether departure in a particular case is justified. It is a question of what weight to give each reason stated and what weight to give the reasons as a whole in light of the offense of conviction and the defendant’s criminal history. The inquiry also considers the purposes and principles of the KSGA.’ [Citation omitted].” State v. Tiffany, 267 Kan. 495, 504-05 , 986 P.2d 1064 (1999).”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 31 Kan. App. 2d 45 - State v. Sprinkle

2. ““Subject to K.S.A. 60-447 evidence that a person committed a crime or civil wrong on a specified occasion, is inadmissible to prove his or her disposition to commit crime or civil wrong as the basis for an inference that the person committed another crime or civil wrong on another specified occasion but, subject to K.S.A. 60-445 and 60-448 such evidence is admissible when relevant to prove some other material fact including motive, opportunity, intent, preparation, plan, knowledge, identity or absence of mistake or accident.””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. State v. McHenry

3. ““In Clements’ situation, intent must be proved to support a charge of sexual batteiy (a backrub does not, by itself, necessarily constitute sexual battery). “Damewood is controlling on the issue of plan. The general method used by Clements to entice young boys is similar enough to show a common approach that is tantamount to a plan. “Clements’ argument arising from [State v.] Graham[, 244 Kan. 194 , 768 P.2d 259 (1989),] and Nunn is not persuasive.” 252 Kan. at 90.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. State v. Rucker