State v. Boggess’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

5 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 5 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “The Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution, made applicable to the states through the Fourteenth Amendment, protects the 'right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures.' Section 15 of the Kansas Constitution Bill of Rights provides the same protections. State v. Ryce, 303 Kan. 899, 909 , 368 P.3d 342 (2016), aff'd on reh'g 306 Kan. 682 , 396 P.3d 711 (2017); see State v. Zwickl, 306 Kan. 286 , 291, 393 P.3d 621 (2017) (stating this court could extend Section 15's protections beyond the federal guarantees provided by the Fourth Amendment but has not yet done so).”

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

2. “Appellate review of a motion to suppress evidence is bifurcated: The factual underpinnings of the decision are reviewed for substantial competent evidence while the ultimate legal conclusion drawn from those facts is reviewed de novo. Substantial competent evidence is evidence that a reasonable person could accept as being adequate to support a conclusion. We do not reweigh the evidence, assess witness credibility, or resolve evidentiary conflicts. [Citations omitted.]”

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

3. “[W]hen a law enforcement officer displays authority and restrains an individual's liberty by stopping a vehicle on a public roadway, constitutional issues arise because a seizure occurs within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution and § 15 of the Kansas Constitution Bill of Rights, both of which protect individuals against unreasonable searches and seizures.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the dissent
   e.g. State v. Arceo-Rojas