State v. Reno’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

23 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 24 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “‘ ‘ There was no error in permitting evidence of violations of law of which'Mr. Titus, the prosecuting witness, had no knowledge, for the information was not only verified by Titus, but it was also verified by the county attorney, and each, verification was sufficient ; besides, this is not a case like the case of The State v. Brooks, 33 Kan. 708 . This is a prosecution for keeping a nuisance at a particular place, while that was a prosecution for the sale of intoxicating liquors. In this case it is not necessary' to show to whom the liquors were sold, while in that case it was. In this case the defendant might be convicted of the offense charged against him without showing that he ever sold a single drop of any kind of intoxicating liquors, while iu that case the gravamen of the offense charged was the sale of the liquor to some person. In cases like the present, a .showing of a mere keeping of intoxicating liquors for sale, or the keeping of a place ‘ where persons are permitted to resort for the purpose of drinking intoxicating liquors as a beverage/ is sufficient, under the statutes, to render the place where the liquors are kept or where the persons are permitted to resort a nuisance, and to render the keeper thereof guilty of keeping a nuisance.””

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. State v. Lord · 3 Kan. App. 594 - State v. O'Connor

2. ““We think this is one of that class of cases in which the court might in its discretion require the prosecution to file a bill of particulars, but such bill of particulars will be required only in cases where the indictment or information does not of itself definitely and specifically set forth tire facts, but sets them forth only vaguely or in such general terms that the defendant could not well know what he is required to defend against. Of course the defendant has the right in all cases to demand that the nature and the cause of the accusation against him shall be clearly and definitely set forth in the written charge against him. (Section 10, Bill of Rights.) But where the complaint is sufficient in all particulars except that it states the facts constituting the offense only in general terms or vaguely, and not in specific detail, the defendant must, if he desires a more elaborate or detailed statement of the facts, set forth in his motion the portions of the indictment or information which he claims to be insufficient or defective, and point out to the court wherein he desires a fuller, more complete, more definite or more circumstantial or particular statement of the facts. This was not done in the present case. The defendant’s motion was certainly as objectionable in this respect as was the information, and the court below did not err in overruling it. We think the information was sufficient as against such a motion.” (p. 679.)”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. State v. Ashton

3. ““The general rule of law is that it is not necessary to prove that the offense was committed at the time at which it is alleged to have been committed, but it may be proved to have been committed at any time within the period prescribed by the statute of limitations within which the action might be commenced.””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. State v. McCarthy