State v. Mathis’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

54 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 56 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““ ‘Judicial scrutiny of counsel’s performance in a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel must be highly deferential. There is a strong presumption that counsel’s conduct falls within the wide range of reasonable professional assistance. [Citation omitted.] To show prejudice, the defendant must show a reasonable probability that but for counsel’s unprofessional errors, the result of the proceeding would have been different. A reasonable probability is a probability sufficient to undermine confidence in the outcome. A court hearing an ineffectiveness claim must consider the totality of the evidence before the judge or jury. [Citation omitted.]’ [Citation omitted.]” 281 Kan. at 110.”

   3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 38 Kan. App. 2d 276 - McPherson v. State · 38 Kan. App. 2d 886 - Silvers v. State

2. ““[T]he purpose of a State’s appeal on a question reserved is to provide an answer to a question of statewide importance that will aid in the correct and uniform administration of the criminal law in future cases. [Citation omitted.] The court will decline to entertain questions reserved by the State that have insufficient statewide importance. [Citation omitted.]” State v. Mathis, 281 Kan. 99, 103 , 130 P.3d 14 (2006).”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 41 Kan. App. 2d 98 - State v. Trostle

3. “The importance of the contemporaneous objection rule is that it gives the trial court the opportunity to conduct the trial without the use of tainted evidence.”

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