Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 273 Kan. 811 - State v. Albright

State v. Albright’s Empirical Analysis

2002

Citation profile

20
cited by 20 later decisions
2
cited 2 times by the Supreme Court
1
states following
December 2020
most recently cited

18 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 20 later decisions (2 by the Supreme Court) — most recently December 2020

18 state decisions

160200220102020decided

Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.

Relationships

Relies on Apprendi v. New Jersey · McMillan v. Pennsylvania · Mullins Coal Co. v. Director · Schwartz v. Pennsylvania · State v. Moncla

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

  1. ““Although the issue is a legal one, his argument is not persuasive. K.S.A. 22-3220 became effective January 1, 1996. With the adoption of K.S.A. 22-3220, insanity and diminished capacity defenses were eliminated in Kansas. See State v. Jorrick, 269 Kan. 72, 81 , 4 P.3d 610 (2000). K.S.A. 22-3220 has not only been discussed by this court in Jorrick , but also has been subjected to extensive discussion in legal periodicals. See, Rosen, Insanity Denied: Abolition of the Insanity Defense in Kansas, 8 Kan. J.L. & Pub. Pol’y 253, 254-55 (1999); Spring, Farewell to Insanity: A Return to Mens Rea, 66 J.K.B.A. 38, 45 (1997). We are not presented here with a new controlling ruling as in Apprendi. We find no exceptional circumstances that would convince us to depart from our traditional rule. We conclude the constitutionality of K. S .A. 22-3220 is not properly before us and wall not be considered in Albright’s appeal.” 273 Kan. at 827 .”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority

How this case has been treated — in progress

Whether each later court followed, distinguished, criticized, or overruled this decision. The treatment classification (task #35) runs highest-cited cases first and lights up here as it reaches this one.