State v. Snellings’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

33 state decisions

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

1. ““(1) where one offense is a lesser included offense of the other; (2) where some provisions in two statutes overlap, the overlapping provisions apply to the charged crime, and the overlapping provisions are identical except for the penalty provisions; and (3) where all provisions in two statutes are identical except for the penalty provisions. The identical offense sentencing doctrine applies to the second and third situations. State v. Campbell, 279 Kan. 1, 14-15 , 106 P.3d 1129 (2005) (quoting 4 LaFave, Israel & King, Criminal Procedure § 13.7[a], pp. 95-99 [2d ed. 1999]).” Snellings, 294 Kan. at 152 .”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. State v. Williams · State v. Euler

2. “In the circumstances of this case, the elements of the offense were knowingly possessing ephedrine or pseudoephedrine with the intent to use it to manufacture a controlled substance. The elements were the same whether Campbell had been charged under the ephedrine statute or the drug paraphernalia statute. Consequently, he must be sentenced under the lesser penalty provisions for violation of 65-4152(a)(3).”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. State v. Euler

3. “'Once it is determined which provisions of a statute apply, the only question is whether the overlapping provisions contain identical elements.' . . . 'That determination is made from the statute.'”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. State v. Euler