State v. Legero’s Empirical Analysis
2004
Citation profile
2 federal appellate · 50 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 52 later decisions — most recently December 2020 · most notably State v. Edgar (2006), State v. Gill (2008)
2 federal appellate · 50 state decisions
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 Gleason v. Samaritan Home & Church Mutual Insurance · State v. Lashley · State v. Engles · State v. Manbeck · State v. Van Hoet
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.
““(b) Appeals to the court of appeals may be taken by the prosecution from cases before a district judge as a matter of right in the following cases, and no others: (1) From an order dismissing a complaint, information or indictment.””
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““The appeal 22-3609a affords a defendant from a judgment does not operate as a review of the propriety of any judicial determination. Rather, the case is transferred to the district court where it will be tried de novo and guilt or innocence determined anew in the district court. On appeal, the case becomes a district court case as if filed there originally. The proceedings in the magistrate court have no bearing on tire case as it comes before the district court. Unless the appeal is dismissed, the proceedings held in the magistrate court leave no footprint. “This procedure set forth in K.S.A. 2003 Supp. 22-3609a is virtually identical to tire appeal afforded to a defendant who has been convicted in municipal court. . . . .... “The difference in the wording of K.S.A. 2003 Supp. 22-3609, ‘from any judgment of a municipal court which adjudges the defendant guilty of a violation of the ordinances of any municipality of Kansas/ and the ‘any judgment’ language of 22-3609a applicable herein was held to be a distinction without a difference in State v. Remlinger, 266 Kan. at 107. The procedures set forth in both statutes are virtual mirror images of each other. There is no appellate review of any prior order or judgment. For all practical purposes, the prosecution starts over.” (Emphasis added.) 278 Kan. at 114 .”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority““The defendant shall have the right to appeal to the district court of the county from any judgment of a municipal court which adjudges the defendant guilty of a violation of the ordinances of any municipality of Kansas. . . . The appeal shall stay all further proceedings upon the judgment appealed from.” (Emphasis added.)”
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.