State v. Patterson’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. “" 'An appellate court generally reviews a trial court's decision on a motion to suppress using a bifurcated standard. The trial court's findings are first reviewed to determine whether they are supported by substantial competent evidence. Appellate courts do not reweigh the evidence, assess the credibility of the witnesses, or resolve conflicting evidence. The ultimate legal conclusion regarding the suppression of evidence is then reviewed de novo. If the material facts in a trial court's decision on a motion to suppress evidence are not in dispute, the question of whether to suppress is a question of law over which an appellate court has unlimited review. [Citation omitted.]' " State v. Patterson , 304 Kan. 272 , 274, 371 P.3d 893 (2016) (quoting State v. Martinez , 296 Kan. 482 , 485, 293 P.3d 718 [2013] ).”

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

2. “The ultimate question in determining whether property is embraced by a premises' curtilage is whether the area in question is so intimately tied to the home itself that it should be placed under the home's umbrella of Fourth Amendment protection. Four principle factors guide whether the area is under the 'umbrella' of the curtilage: (1) how near the area is to the home; (2) whether any enclosures surrounding the home embrace the area in question; (3) how the area is used; and (4) whether the resident has acted to protect the area from observation by people passing by.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 55 Kan. App. 2d 259 - State v. Bannon

3. “'the subsequent seizure is unconstitutional without more.'”

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