Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 4 Kan. App. 2d 651 - State v. Williams

4 Kan. App. 2d 651 - State v. Williams’s Empirical Analysis

1980

Citation profile

16
cited by 16 later decisions
4
states following
June 2002
most recently cited

14 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 16 later decisions — most recently June 2002

14 state decisions

110198019902000decided

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 State v. Brunner · State v. Chiles · State v. Gordon · State v. Coe · 24 Ill. App. 3d 864 - People v. Ussery

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

  1. ““ ‘A person’s subjective belief or feelings are not controlling on the question as to whether he was under arrest at a particular time, although it is a factor to be considered, and the test is what a reasonable man, innocent of any crime, would have thought had he been in the same position.’ ” State v. Williams, 4 Kan. App. 2d 651, 654-55 , 610 P.2d 111 (1980), citing 6A C.J.S., Arrest § 43, pp. 100-101.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  2. ““It is not necessary that the evidence giving rise to such probable cause be sufficient to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, nor must it be sufficient to prove guilt is more probable than not. It is only necessary the evidence lead the officer to believe that guilt is more than a possibility, and it is well-established that the belief may be predicated in part upon hearsay information.””
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  3. ““In order to constitute an act of arrest, there must be an intention or a purpose to take a person into the custody of the law, under a real or pretended authority, and an actual or constructive seizure or detention of such person.””
    1 later decision quote this exact passage

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.