State v. Kesselring’s Empirical Analysis
2005
Citation profile
113 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 113 later decisions — most recently September 2024 · most notably State v. Schoonover (2006), State v. Engelhardt (2005)
113 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 Crawford v. Washington · State v. Davis · State v. Mays · State v. Hebert · In re L.A.
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 113 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““ ‘When the sufficiency of the evidence is challenged in a criminal case, the standard of review is whether, after review of all the evidence, viewed in the light most favorable to the prosecution, the appellate court is convinced that a rational factfinder could have found the defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.’ [Citation omitted.]” State v. Kesselring, 279 Kan. 671, 679 , 112 P.3d 175 (2005).”
7 later decisions quote this exact passage““ ‘In a multiple acts case, several acts are alleged and any one of them could constitute the crime charged. . . . [Citations omitted.] Whether a case is a multiple acts case is a question of law over which this court has unlimited review. [Citation omitted.] State v. Davis, 275 Kan. 107, 115 , 61 P.3d 701 (2003). The threshold question in a multiple acts analysis is whether the defendant’s conduct is part of one act or represents multiple acts which are separate and distinct from each other.’ [Citation omitted.]””
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. State v. Bischoff““[T]he evidence here supports only a brief time frame in which the aggravated battery occurred. Once defendant initiated the altercation, no break in the action of any length occurred, and the confrontation continued until defendant broke the victim’s cheekbone. Simply put, the evidence established a continuous incident that simply cannot be factually separated. No ‘multiple acts’ instruction was necessary.” 27 Kan. App. 2d at 868.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. State v. Vann
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.