State v. Wells’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

16 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 16 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “Our holding in Coyote was not based on the fact that the district court failed to answer the jury's question orally in open court while the defendant was present.”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. State v. Harrison · State v. Bolze-Sann

2. ““The most fundamental rule of statutory construction is that the intent of the legislature governs if that intent can be ascertained. An appellate court’s first attempt to ascertain legislative intent is through an analysis of the language employed, giving ordinary words their ordinary meaning. If a statute is plain and unambiguous, an appellate court does not need to speculate further about legislative intent and, likewise, the court need not resort to canons of statutory construction or legislative history.” State v. Wells, 296 Kan. 65 , Syl. ¶ 9, 290 P.3d 590 (2012).”

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

3. ““The plain language of K.S.A. 22-3420(3) does not support Wells’ contention because the statute only requires the presence of the defendant if the jury, after making a request, is taken into the courtroom so it can receive information from the district court on a point of law.... Because the jury never asked to be returned to the courtroom so it could be informed on the legal definition of abets, the district court did not violate K.S.A. 22-3420(3) by answering tire juiy’s written question via a written note.” Wells, 296 Kan. at 90-91 .”

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