State v. Dull’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

26 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. ““Although ‘there are circumstances when no evidentiaiy record need be established, when the merit or lack of merit of an ineffectiveness claim about trial counsel is obvious,’ and an ineffectiveness claim can therefore be resolved when raised for the first time on appeal, these circumstances are ‘extremely rare.’ Rowland, 289 Kan. at 1084-85 ; see also State v. Levy, 292 Kan. 379 , 253 P.3d 341 (2011) (declining to consider ineffective assistance claims for first time on direct appeal; declining to remand for Van Cleave hearing based on defendant’s failure to meet minimal requirements); Laymon v. State, 280 Kan. 430, 444 , 122 P.3d 326 (2005) (direct appeal counsel’s performance objectively unreasonable; performance prejudiced defendant); Carter, 270 Kan. at 433-34, 440-41 (trial coun- seis pursuit of guilt-based defense despite client’s contrary wishes ineffective, prejudicial per se).” Dull, 298 Kan. at 839 .”

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

2. ““ ‘(1) whetíier the misconduct was gross and flagrant; (2) whether the misconduct showed ill will on the prosecutor’s part; and (3) whether die evidence against die defendant was of such a direct and overwhelming nature that the misconduct would likely have little weight in die minds of the jurors. Under Tosh, none of these diree factors is individually controlling. And before the tiiird factor can ever override the first two factors, an appellate court must be able to say diat the harmlessness tests of both K.S.A. 60-261 and Chapman v. California, 386 U.S. 18 , 87 S. Ct. 824 , 17 L. Ed. 2d 705 , reh. denied 386 U.S. 987 (1967), have been met.’ State v. Bridges, 297 Kan. 989 , Syl. ¶ ¶ 14, 15, 306 P.3d 244 (2013).” Dull, 298 Kan. at 836 .”

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

3. “'When sufficiency of the evidence is challenged in a criminal case, the standard of review is whether, after reviewing all the evidence in a light most favorable to the prosecution, the appellate court is convinced a rational factfinder could have found the defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. Appellate courts do not reweigh evidence, resolve evidentiary conflicts, or make witness credibility determinations.' [Citation omitted.]”

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