State v. Edwards’s Empirical Analysis
2010
Citation profile
11
cited by 11 later decisions
2
states following
August 2014
most recently cited
11 state decisions
Relationships
Relies on Pierce v. Board of County Commissioners · State v. Ortega-Cadelan · State v. Shopteese · State v. Warledo · Pizel v. Zuspann
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 11 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““It is true that to facilitate a meaningful appellate review, the district court must make sufficient findings of fact and conclusions of law on the record. State v. Moncla, 269 Kan. 61, 65 , 4 P.3d 618 (2000); Supreme Court Rule 165 (2009 Kan. Ct. R. Annot. 239). This obligation is emphasized in Rule 165, which states in part that ‘[i]n all contested matters submitted to a judge without a jury . . . , the judge shall state the controlling facts required by K.S.A. 60-252, and the legal principles controlling the decision.’ ” (Emphasis added.) State v. Edwards, 290 Kan. 330, 335 , 226 P.3d 1285 (2010).”
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.