State v. Dull’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

28 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 28 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “"While we have found mandatory lifetime postrelease supervision constitutional for adults, the same factors that result in a diminished culpability for juveniles, i.e. , recklessness, immaturity, irresponsibility, impetuousness, and ill-considered decision making, along with their lower risks of recidivism, all diminish the penological goals of lifetime supervision for juvenile sex offenders." 302 Kan. 32 , Syl. ¶ 7, 351 P.3d 641 .”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the dissent
   e.g. In the Interest of T.H., Minor Child · State v. Brook

2. “"The United States Supreme Court identifies three subcategories of categorical proportionality challenges. The first considers the nature of the offense, such as a prohibition on capital punishment for nonhomicide crimes against individuals. Graham , 560 U.S. at 60-61 [ 130 S.Ct. 2011 ] (citing Enmund v. Florida , 458 U.S. 782 , 102 S.Ct. 3368 , 73 L.Ed. 2d 1140 [1982] ). The second considers the characteristics of the offender, such as a categorical rule prohibiting the death penalty for juveniles. Graham , 560 U.S. at 61 [ 130 S.Ct. 2011 ] (citing Roper v. Simmons , 543 U.S. 551 , 125 S.Ct. 1183 , 161 L.Ed. 2d 1 [2005] ). The third, which was first recognized in Graham , combines the two because it 'implicates a particular type of sentence as it applies to an entire class of offenders who have committed a range of crimes.' 560 U.S. at 61 [ 130 S.Ct. 2011 ]." State v. Williams , 298 Kan. 1075 , 1086, 319 P.3d 528 (2014).”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the dissent
   e.g. State v. Kahler

3. “[The Court of Appeals] identified that challenges to proportionality under the Eighth Amendment are divided into two classifications: (1) the length of term-of-years sentences given all the circumstances in a particular case; and (2) categorical restrictions on the death penalty. This second classification also encompasses cases in which the court implements the proportionality standard based on certain categorical restrictions. See State v. Ross, 295 Kan. 424, 428 , 284 P.3d 309 (2012).”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the dissent
   e.g. – State v. Patterson –