4 Kan. App. 2d 389 - State v. Antwine’s Empirical Analysis
1980
Citation profile
44 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 44 later decisions — most recently October 2018 · most notably State v. Davis (2003), State v. Beach (2003)
44 state decisions
Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.
Relationships
Relies on M. Morrin & Son Co. v. Burgess Construction Co. · Prestidge v. United States · Case v. Andrews · State v. Sullivan & Sullivan · State v. McCorgary
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 44 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““Although [State v. Thompson, 221 Kan. 165 , 558 P.2d 1079 (1976)], suggests that robbery and theft contain distinct elements, we believe our Supreme Court has determined that theft is a lesser included offense of robbery and we are duty bound to follow that determination. . . . “. . . Of particular significance to us is that [State v. Colbert, 221 Kan. 203 , 557 P.2d 1235 (1976)] was filed by the Supreme Court on the same day as State v. Thompson, 221 Kan. 165 , indicating that the Supreme Court apparently did not intend to depart from its previous line of cases holding theft to be a lesser included offense of robbery by reason of eliminating the requirement in robbery of a specific intent to deprive the owner permanently of his or her property.””
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. State v. Long““The law is also well established that the trial court has a duty to instruct on lesser included offenses even though such instructions have not been requested. State v. Sullivan & Sullivan at 120; K.S.A. 21-3107(3). If an accused fails to give the grounds for an objection, or fails to request an instruction on something other than a lesser included offense, then the accused may not claim error unless the court’s action is clearly erroneous. State v. Worth, 217 Kan. 393, 395 , 537 P.2d 191 (1975), cert. denied 423 U.S. 1057 (1976).” 4 Kan. App. 2d 396 -97. (Emphasis added.)”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. State v. Tyus““An accused is entitled to instructions on his theory of defense if that theory is supported by any evidence whatsoever (State v. Christon, 3 Kan. App. 2d 372, 375 , 595 P.2d 356 [1979]), and it does not matter that the only evidence adduced is the unsupported testimony of the defendant. State v. Sullivan & Sullivan, 224 Kan. 110, 120 , 578 P.2d 1108 (1978).””
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. State v. Tyus
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.