State v. Phinney’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

72 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 72 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““A limited exception to the general rule requiring a timely appeal from sentencing is recognized in the interest of fundamental fairness only in those cases where an indigent defendant was either: (1) not informed of [any] rights to appeal; (2) was not furnished an attorney to perfect an appeal; or (3) was furnished an attorney for that purpose who failed to perfect and complete an appeal.” (Emphasis added.) State v. Phinney, 280 Kan. 394, 401 , 122 P.3d 356 (2005) (citing Ortiz, 230 Kan. at 735-36 ).”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 37 Kan. App. 2d 166 - State v. Patton · 37 Kan. App. 2d 667 - Casner v. State

2. “The facts underlying an Ortiz exception ruling should be examined on appeal under a substantial competent evidence standard of review. The ultimate legal determination of whether those facts fit the exception should be reviewed under a de novo standard.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. State v. Smith