Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 289 Kan. 28 - State v. Phillips

State v. Phillips’s Empirical Analysis

2009

Citation profile

30
cited by 30 later decisions
1
states following
February 2022
most recently cited

30 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 30 later decisions — most recently February 2022 · most notably State v. Ellmaker (2009), State v. Raschke (2009)

30 state decisions

220200920102020decided

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 Bearden v. Georgia · 655 So. 2d 111 - Reyes v. State · Palmer v. Brown · State v. Johnson · State v. Robinson

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

  1. ““When a court is called upon to interpret a statute, the intent of the legislature governs if that intent can be ascertained. The legislature is presumed to have expressed its intent through the language it enacted. [Citation omitted.] For this reason, when the language of a statute is plain and unambiguous, courts need not resort to statutory construction. [Citation omitted.] If a statute is subject to more than one interpretation, however, a court attempting to discern legislative intent may employ rules of statutory construction and look to the historical background of the enactment, the circumstances attending its passage, the purposes to be accomplished, and the effects the statute may have under the various constructions suggested. [Citations omitted.]” State v. Phillips, 289 Kan. 28, 32 , 210 P.3d 93 (2009).”
    3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “Nevertheless, because the assessment of BIDS attorney fees is not punitive and not a part of the sentence, the failure to announce the amount of the fee at the sentencing does not mean the fees can never be assessed against a defendant. [Citation omitted.]”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “a remand is appropriate for reconsideration of the payment of BIDS attorney fees.”
    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.