State v. WARRIOR’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

84 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 86 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “'[b]ecause law enforcement's knowledge of evidence is imputed to the State, a Brady violation can occur when the prosecutor withholds material evidence 3 that is not known to the prosecutor but is known to law enforcement.'”

   7 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. State v. Auman · State v. Breitenbach

2. ““Judicial discretion is abused if judicial action (1) is arbitrary, fanciful, or unreasonable, in other words, if no reasonable person would have taken the view adopted by the trial court; (2) is based on an error of law, in other words, if the discretion is guided by an erroneous legal conclusion; or (3) is based on an error of fact, in other words, if substantial competent evidence does not support a factual finding on which a prerequisite conclusion of law or the exercise of discretion is based. [Citation omitted.]” State v. Warrior, 294 Kan. 484, 505 , 277 P.3d 1111 (2012).”

   3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. State v. Burnett · State v. Wells

3. ““An appellate court reviewing a trial court’s determination of whether an interrogation is custodial, makes two discrete inquiries. Under the first inquiry, the court determines tire circumstances surrounding the interrogation, employing a substantial competent evidence standard of review. In determining if there is substantial competent evidence supporting the existence of tire circumstances found by the trial court, an appellate court does not reweigh evidence, assess the credibility of the witnesses, or resolve conflicting evidence. [Citations omitted]. The second inquiry employs a de novo standard of review to determine whether, under the totality of those circumstances, a reasonable person would have felt free to terminate tire interrogation and disengage from the encounter.” State v. Warrior, 294 Kan. 484, 497 , 277 P.3d 1111 (2012).”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 56 Kan. App. 2d 156 - In re P.W.G. · State v. Swindler