State v. Meeks’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

42 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 42 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “finds compelling circumstances which would render a plan of restitution unworkable.”

   4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. State v. Robison · State v. Tucker

2. “"Given the rigidity evolving from the Court of Appeals decisions, we think it is appropriate to reiterate that unworkability should be evaluated on a case-by-case basis. As we stated in Goeller , a defendant who argues that restitution is unworkable must come forward with evidence of his or her inability to pay. 276 Kan. at 583 [ 77 P.3d 1272 ]. District courts should use this flexible guideline to evaluate each defendant's unique circumstances before deciding whether the defendant has shown a plan would be unworkable. Some of the factors relevant to the court's inquiry will be the defendant's income, present and future earning capacity, living expenses, debts and financial obligations, and dependents. In some circumstances, the amount of time it will take a defendant to pay off a restitution order will also be relevant, especially if the defendant is subject to probation until the restitution is paid in full. In all circumstances, the district court should keep in mind the ultimate goals of restitution: compensation to the victim and deterrence and rehabilitation of the guilty. See State v. Hunziker , 274 Kan. 655 , Syl. ¶ 4, 56 P.3d 202 (2002)." Meeks , 307 Kan. at 820 , 415 P.3d 400 .”

   3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. State v. Lucas Dwight · State v. Martin

3. “The Model Sentencing and Corrections Act includes a model restitution statute that directs a court to consider 'the financial resources and future ability of the offender to pay or perform' when ordering restitution. Model Sentencing and Corrections Act § 3-601, 10 U.L.A. 443 (2001). In a majority of states, courts follow such a model, considering a defendant's circumstances and his or her ability to pay before setting a restitution amount.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 57 Kan. App. 2d 836 - State v. Roberts