4 Kan. App. 2d 130 - State v. Stoops’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

47 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 47 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““ ‘ “ ‘The overwhelming majority of jurisdictions follow generally the so-called “single larceny doctrine”; that is, that the taking of property belonging to different owners at the same time and place constitutes but one larceny. Various rationales have been propounded in support of this position, perhaps the most common one being that such taking is one offense because the act of taking is one continuous act or transaction, and since the gist of the offense is the felonious taking of property, the legal quality of the act is not affected by the fact that the property stolen belonged to different persons.’ ” ’ 24 Kan. App. 2d at 738 .” Hood, 44 Kan. App. 2d at 152 .”

   5 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. State v. Hood · 9 Kan. App. 2d 68 - State v. Waufle

2. “[A] defendant could be convicted of separate thefts only if the evidence showed the offenses 9 to be separate and distinct and not committed pursuant to one intention, one impulse, or one plan.”

   5 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. 9 Kan. App. 2d 68 - State v. Waufle · 24 Kan. App. 2d 734 - State v. Thomas

3. ““ ‘The trial judge should be the exemplar of dignity and impartiality. He should exercise restraint over his conduct and utterances. He should suppress his persona] predilections, and control his temper and emotions. He should not permit any person in the courtroom to embroil him in conflict, and he should otherwise avoid conduct on his part which tends to demean the proceedings or to undermine his authority in the courtroom. When it becomes necessary during the trial for him to comment upon the conduct of witnesses, spectators, counsel, or others, or upon the testimony, he should do so in a firm, dignified and restrained manner, avoiding repartee, limiting his comments and rulings to what is reasonably required for the orderly progress of the trial, and refraining from unnecessary disparagement of persons or issues.’ ” “Allegations of judicial misconduct during trial must be decided on the particular facts and circumstances surrounding such alleged misconduct; and in order to warrant or require the granting of a new trial it must affirmatively appear that the conduct was of such a nature that it prejudiced the substantial rights of the complaining party. State v. Thomson, 188 Kan. 171, 174 , 360 P.2d 871 (1961). In a more recent case, Plains Transport of Kansas, Inc. v. Baldwin, 217 Kan. 2, 10 , 535 P.2d 865 (1975), the Kansas Supreme Court stated: ‘We enter our caveat that no comment or remark should be made by a judge, during the trial of an action, which may tend to excit”

   3 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. State v. Hamilton · State v. Nguyen