State v. Waller’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

25 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 25 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “' "This statute creates a two-step process. First, the trial court must determine if there was some fundamental failure of the proceeding. If so, the trial court moves to the second step and assesses whether it is possible to continue without an injustice. In other words, the trial court must decide if the prejudicial conduct's damaging effect can be removed or mitigated by an admonition, jury instruction, or other action. If not, the trial court must determine whether the degree of prejudice results in an injustice and, if so, declare a mistrial. State v. Ward , 292 Kan. 541 , 550, 256 P.3d 801 (2011), cert. denied [ 565 U.S. 1221 ], 132 S.Ct. 1594 , 182 L.Ed.2d 205 (2012) ; see State v. Race , 293 Kan. 69 , 80, 259 P.3d 707 (2011). " ' "In Ward , our court articulated this standard by dividing the appellate court's abuse of discretion inquiry into two parts, asking: (1) Did the trial court abuse its discretion when deciding if there was a fundamental failure in the proceeding? and (2) Did the trial court abuse its discretion when deciding whether the conduct resulted in prejudice that could not be cured or mitigated through jury admonition or instruction, resulting in an injustice? 292 Kan. at 551 [ 256 P.3d 801 ].”

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

2. “'a statute operates only prospectively unless there is clear language indicating the legislature intended otherwise. State v. Martin, 270 Kan. 603, 608-09 , 17 P.3d 344 (2001); State v. Sisk, 266 Kan. 41, 44 , 966 P.2d 671 (1998). An exception to this rule has been employed when the statutory change is merely procedural or remedial in nature and does not prejudicially affect the substantive rights of the parties. Martin, 270 Kan. at 608 - 09; State v. Ford, 262 Kan. 206, 208 , 936 P.2d 255 (1997).' Wells, 297 Kan. [741,] 761 [, 305 P.3d 568 (2013)].”

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

3. “Notably, cumulative error will not be found when the record fails to support the errors raised on appeal by the defendant. Furthermore, a single error cannot constitute cumulative error.”

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