32 Kan. App. 2d 402 - McCarty v. State’s Empirical Analysis
2004
Citation profile
9
cited by 9 later decisions
3
states following
February 2010
most recently cited
7 state decisions
Relationships
Relies on Strickland v. Washington · Anders v. California · Evitts v. Lucey · Pennsylvania v. Finley · Wainwright v. Torna
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 9 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““If the court finds that the petition or motion [e.g., 1507] presents substantial questions of law or triable issues of fact and if the petitioner or movant has been or is thereafter determined to be an indigent person as provided in K.S.A. 22-4504 and amendments thereto, the court shall appoint counsel from the panel for indigents’ defense services or otherwise in accordance with the applicable system for providing legal defense services for indigent persons prescribed by the state board of indigents’ defense services, to assist such person ....” (Emphasis added.)”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the dissente.g. Brown v. State
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.