Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 280 KAN 513 - State v. Walker

State v. Walker’s Empirical Analysis

2005

Citation profile

27
cited by 27 later decisions
2
states following
November 2023
most recently cited

27 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 27 later decisions — most recently November 2023 · most notably State v. Arnett (2010), Miami County Board of Commissioners v. Kanza Rail-Trails Conservancy, Inc. (2011)

27 state decisions

140200520102020decided

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 State v. Nunn · State v. Gonzales · In re Wiles · State v. McAdam · State v. Clements

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

  1. “The most fundamental rule of statutory construction is that the intent of the Legislature governs if that intent can be ascertained. In ascertaining this intent, we begin with the plain language of the statute, giving common words their ordinary meaning. When a statute is plain and unambiguous, an appellate court should not speculate about the legislative intent behind that clear language, and it should refrain from reading something into the statute that is not readily found in its words. But if a statute's language is ambiguous, we will consult our canons of construction to resolve the ambiguity. [Citations omitted.]”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “Under these circumstances, we conclude that the construction of the statutory language is uncertain or ambiguous as applied to the facts of this case, where the severity level of the crime of conviction does not match the sentence to be imposed.”
    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.