State v. Garza’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

2 district · 24 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 26 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “K.S.A. 8-1514is specific to driving left of center. See Hopper, 260 Kan. at 70, 917 P.2d 872 ; State v. Chavez-Zbarra, 42 Kan.App.2d 1074, 1077 , 221 P.3d 606 (2009) (applying statute when driver crossed centerline on two-lane road; K.S.A. 8-1522 applies to roads with two lanes traveling same direction). Since the officer testified his reason for the stop was that he saw the car’s headlight in the officer’s lane orí a two-way roadway marked with a double yellow line, and actually used the terminology “left of center,” thé district court should have applied K.S.A. 8-1514. And contrary to the district court’s decision, nothing in K.S.A. 8-1514 suggests the statute applies only to unmarked roads. When a statute is plain and unambiguous, this court looks to its plain language. State v. King, 293 Kan. 1057, 1060 , 274 P.3d 599 (2012). K.S.A. 8-1514 on its face does not make any restriction for unmarked roads.”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 180 F. Supp. 3d 836 - United States v. Beasley · State v. Parker

2. “(1) When overtaking and passing another vehicle proceeding in the same direction under the rules governing such movement; (2) When an obstruction exists making it necessary to drive to the left of the center of the highway, except that any person so doing shall yield the right-of-way to all vehicles traveling in the proper direction upon the unobstructed portion of the highway within such distance as to constitute an immediate hazard; (3) Upon a roadway divided into three (3) marked lanes for traffic under the rules applicable thereon; or (4) Upon a roadway restricted to one-way traffic.”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. State v. Arceo-Rojas · 180 F. Supp. 3d 836 - United States v. Beasley

3. ““An appellate court reviews a district court’s decision on a motion to suppress using a bifurcated standard. Without reweighing the evidence, the district court’s findings of fact are reviewed to determine whether they are supported by substantial competent evidence. A de novo standard of review is then used to review the ultimate legal conclusion regarding the suppression of evidence.” State v. Garza, 295 Kan. 326, 330-31 , 286 P.3d 554 (2012).”

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