State v. Richardson’s Empirical Analysis
2009
Citation profile
49 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 49 later decisions — most recently July 2020 · most notably State v. Akins (2014), State v. Lowrance (2013)
49 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 Apprendi v. New Jersey · Grayned v. City of Rockford · Griswold v. State of Connecticut · Grayned v. City of Rockford · Lawrence v. Texas
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 49 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“The distinction between general intent and specific intent crimes is `whether, in addition to the intent required by K.S.A. 21-3201, the statute defining the crime in question identifies or requires a further particular intent which must accompany the prohibited acts.' [Citation omitted].”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. In Re CPW“statute that 'either requires or forbids the doing of an act in terms so vague that persons of common intelligence must necessarily guess at its meaning and differ as to its application' violates the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution and is thus void for vagueness.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. State v. Harris“A claim that a statute is void for vagueness necessarily requires a court to interpret the language of the statute in question to determine whether it gives adequate warning as to the proscribed conduct.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. – State v. Jenkins –
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.