Kansas City v. Stricklin’s Empirical Analysis
1968
Citation profile
2 federal appellate · 32 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 37 later decisions — most recently April 2004 · most notably State v. Mitchell (1978), Kansas City v. LaRose (1975)
2 federal appellate · 32 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 237 Mo. App. 167 - City of Clayton v. Nemours · State v. Rizor · Flournoy v. Gallagher · United Cemeteries Co. v. Strother · Davis v. Roberts
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 37 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““Since a proceeding- for violation of a city ordinance is in the nature of a civil action, the same strictness in stating an offense is not required as in a criminal prosecution ... an information or complaint charging the violation of a city ordinance is ordinarily sufficient where it describes the act complained of in the language of the ordinance..."”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage““On information, the below named, Assistant City Counselor within and for Kansas City, County of Jackson, and State of Missouri, complains and informs the Court that on or about the 30th day of October, A.D.1966, within the corporate limits of Kansas City, and in and upon 1048 East 5th Street one John Caresio did then and there unlawfully participate in a game of chance which was played for money, to wit: a dice game. “All in violation of Section 23.030 & 1.-100 of the Revised Ordinances of 1956 of Kansas City, Missouri, as amended.””
1 later decision quote this exact passage““ * * * ‘No person shall have in his possession or in any room, house, building or place under his control or management any gambling table, gambling device or gambling paraphernalia capable of no lawful use; provided however, that the manufacture, possession and storage thereof in the city solely for sale, shipment and delivery outside the corporate limits of the city shall not be unlawful. * *”
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.