State v. Anthony’s Empirical Analysis
2006
Citation profile
114 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 114 later decisions — most recently October 2024 · most notably Unruh v. PURINA MILLS, LLC (2009), State v. Ellmaker (2009)
114 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 Chapman v. State of California · Doyle v. Ohio · Trudo v. United States · State v. Gunby · State v. Pabst
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 114 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““ ‘Cumulative trial errors, considered collectively, may be so great as to require reversal of a defendant’s conviction. The test is whether the totality of the circumstances substantially prejudiced the defendant and denied the defendant a fair trial. No prejudicial error may be found under the cumulative effect rule if the evidence is overwhelming against a defendant.’ [Citation omitted.]” Nguyen, 285 Kan. at 437 (quoting State v. Anthony, 282 Kan. 201, 216 , 145 P.3d 1 [2006]).”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. State v. Brinklow · State v. Nguyen“'Generally, to preserve an evidentiary issue for appellate review, the complaining party must have lodged a timely and specific objection at trial.' "); State v. Anthony , 282 Kan. 201 , 213-14, 145 P.3d 1 (2006) ("We do not regard an Elnicki issue as one we must address to serve the ends of justice or prevent a denial of fundamental rights. ... Instead, we adhere to our general rule that a challenge to the admissibility of evidence will not be considered for the first time on appeal.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. State v. Lowery · State v. Younger““ ‘And if you think about it, the two blows that actually lolled David Carrington had to occur at some point, they may have occurred last and David Carrington went to the ground, but if they came last, then there is [sic] at least five blows before them. This person is thinking about what they are doing. They know what they are doing. If those two blows came first, then David Carrington is unconscious, defenseless on the ground, and this person continues to beat him at least five more times. That’s premeditation.’ ” 282 Kan. at 208 .”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. State v. Marks
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.