27 Kan. App. 2d 561 - Roach v. State’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

12 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 12 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““ ‘The sufficiency of the charging document is measured by whether it contains the elements of the offense intended to be charged, sufficiently apprises the defendant of what he or she must be prepared to meet, and is specific enough to make a subsequent plea of double jeopardy possible. The charging document is sufficient if it substantially follows the language of the statute or charges the offense in equivalent words or words of the same import. [Citations omitted.]’ ” 27 Kan. App. 2d at 567 (quoting State v. Smith, 268 Kan. 222, 226-27 , 993 P.2d 1213 [1999]).”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 29 Kan. App. 2d 919 - State v. Cribbs

2. ““[T]he doctrine is available in a 60-1507 proceeding if the delay of petitioner is unreasonable, if the facts on which the issue was based had been known to petitioner for many years, and if there is evidence of prejudice to the State. We are also prepared to conclude that certain delays will not result in a presumption of prejudice which a petitioner must rebut. We will not hesitate to apply the doctrine of laches to a proper factual situation.””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 33 Kan. App. 2d 171 - Woodberry v. State

3. “As an equitable doctrine, habeas corpus is subject to the doctrine of laches.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. State v. Sutphin