29 Kan. App. 2d 770 - State v. Timms’s Empirical Analysis
2001
Citation profile
10
cited by 10 later decisions
1
states following
August 2009
most recently cited
10 state decisions
Relationships
Relies on State v. Buggs · In re Stephens · State v. Whitesell · State v. Matlock · State v. Hedges
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 10 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““Ordinarily, criminal restraint is a lesser included offense of kidnapping. [Citations omitted.] When there is a factual question as to whether a defendant had the specific intent required to prove kidnapping, an instruction on criminal restraint is warranted. See State v. Carter, 232 Kan. 124, 126 , 652 P.2d 694 (1982). “The key difference between kidnapping and criminal restraint is that kidnapping requires specific intent and criminal restraint does not.” 29 Kan. App. 2d at 774 .”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. State v. Wiggett
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.