State v. Cheeks’s Empirical Analysis
2015
Citation profile
4
cited by 4 later decisions
1
states following
March 2021
most recently cited
4 state decisions
Relationships
Relies on State v. Arnett · State v. Coman · State v. Thompson · State v. Cheeks · State v. Reese
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 4 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“Cheeks was convicted in 1993 of the second-degree murder of his wife. Cheeks received a prison sentence of 15 years to life imprisonment. This court affirmed his case on direct appeal. State v. Cheeks, 258 Kan. 581 , 908 P.2d 175 (1995). We also affirmed a later district court denial of Cheeks' pro se motion to correct an illegal sentence. State v. Cheeks, 280 Kan. 373 , 121 P.3d 989 (2005). "In March 2009, Cheeks filed a pro se petition for postconviction DNA testing under K.S.A. 21-2512. The petition was summarily denied because the statute limited the availability of such testing to cases involving convictions of first-degree murder under K.S.A. 21-3401 or of rape under K.S.A. 21-3502. Cheeks appealed to this court and prevailed. State v. Cheeks, 298 Kan. 1, 3 , 310 P.3d 346 (2013). [This court] extended K.S.A. 21-2512 to Cheeks and other similarly situated individuals under the authority of the Equal Protection Clause of the United States Constitution. 298 Kan. at 11 .”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. State v. Cheeks“Cheeks remained in prison at the time his K.S.A. 21-2512 petition for DNA testing was filed, he was 'in state custody' at the relevant time.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. State v. Cheeks“so that the merits of the petition may be considered.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. State v. Cheeks
How this case has been treated — in progress
Whether each later court followed, distinguished, criticized, or overruled this decision. The treatment classification (task #35) runs highest-cited cases first and lights up here as it reaches this one.