Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 286 Kan. 329 - State v. Kirkpatrick

State v. Kirkpatrick’s Empirical Analysis

2008

Citation profile

45
cited by 45 later decisions
1
states following
May 2022
most recently cited

45 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 45 later decisions — most recently May 2022 · most notably State v. Gant (2009), Miami County Board of Commissioners v. Kanza Rail-Trails Conservancy, Inc. (2011)

45 state decisions

310200820102020decided

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 Powell v. State of Alabama Patterson · Kimmelman v. Morrison · Public Citizen v. United States Department of Justice · Green v. Bock Laundry MacHine Co. · United States v. Brown

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

  1. ““ ‘Jurors may be recalled for post-trial hearings only by order of the court after a hearing on a request to recall the jury. A recall of the jury is not a routine matter. Jury service is a public duty of citizens and recall of jurors after their service has ended to testily as to events occurring in the jury room during deliberations is a serious step. That step is to be undertaken only for just cause. The procedure should never be utilized as a fishing trip upon a losing party’s hope that jury misconduct might surface if the jurors could be questioned under oath. The burden is upon the party seeking an order to recall the jurors to show the necessity for the order.’ [Citation omitted.]” 286 Kan. at 351 (quoting Ruebke, 240 Kan. at 513 ).”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. ““Perfect self-defense is a concept based on justification or excuse and operates as a complete defense. It applies broadly to all crimes involving the use of force against another. See K.S.A. 21-3211 (Furse) et seq. Imperfect self-defense, in contrast, is based not on justification, but on mitigation and, thus, operates only to reduce criminal culpability to a lesser crime. 40 Am. Jur. 2d, Homicide § 139. Imperfect self-defense is ‘not a true defense; it does not absolve a defendant of criminal liability. It is, rather, a lesser degree of the crime of homicide.’ State v. Carter, 284 Kan. 312, 326 , 160 P.3d 457 (2007).””
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “"`"When murder is committed during the commission of a felony, the rule requiring instructions on lesser included offenses does not apply. The felonious conduct is held tantamount to the elements of deliberation and premeditation which are otherwise required for first-degree murder. It is only when the evidence of the underlying felony is weak, inconclusive, or conflicting that instructions on lesser included offenses may be required." [Citation omitted.]'" 286 Kan. at 334-35 , 184 P.3d 247 (quoting State v. Calvin, 279 Kan. 193, 201-02 , 105 P.3d 710 [2005]).”
    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.