5 Kan. App. 2d 760 - State v. Small’s Empirical Analysis
1981
Citation profile
9 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 9 later decisions — most recently June 2018
9 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 United States v. Falcone · State v. Campbell · Robertson v. State · McMorris v. State · State v. Borserine
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 9 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““To establish a conspiracy it is not necessary that there be any formal agreement manifested by formal words, written or spoken; it is enough if the parties tacitly come to an understanding in regard to the unlawful purpose and this may be inferred from sufficiently significant circumstances.” State v. Small, 5 Kan. App. 2d 760 , Syl. ¶ 2, 625 P.2d 1 , rev. denied 229 Kan. 671 (1981).”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“It strains credulity to suggest that defendant repeatedly took merchandise through a store checkout stand without paying for it in the absence of some sort of prearrangement.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. State v. King
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.