Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 279 KAN 354 - State v. James

State v. James’s Empirical Analysis

2005

Citation profile

12
cited by 12 later decisions
1
states following
February 2012
most recently cited

12 state decisions

Relationships

Relies on Apprendi v. New Jersey · Blakely v. Washington · Ring v. Arizona · Schwartz v. Pennsylvania · State v. Conley

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. ““Generally, all relevant evidence is admissible. K.S.A. 60-407(f). Relevant evidence is defined as ‘evidence having any tendency in reason to prove any material fact.’K.S.A. 60-401(b). . . . ‘Photographs depicting the extent, nature, and number of wounds inflicted are generally relevant in a murder case. Photographs which are relevant and material in assisting the jury’s understanding of medical testimony are admissible. Specifically, photographs which aid a pathologist in explaining the cause of death are admissible. Photographs used to prove the manner of death and the violent nature of the crime are relevant and admissible.’ ” State v. Cavaness, 278 Kan. 469, 477 , 101 P.3d 717 (2004) (quoting State v. Parker, 277 Kan. 838 , Syl. ¶ 5, 89 P.3d 622 [2004]).”
    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.