State v. McFeeters’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

10 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 10 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “[t]he particularity requirement ... is not met when an appellate court must imply the district court's reasons for finding that the safety of members of the public will be jeopardized or that the welfare of the offender will not be served by the bypassed intermediate sanction.”

   3 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. State v. Tearney · State v. Clapp

2. “'[w]hen something is to be set forth with particularity, it must be distinct rather than general, with exactitude of detail, especially in description or stated with attention to or concern with details.'”

   3 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. State v. Clapp · 56 Kan. App. 2d 1268 - State v. Duran

3. “'My major concern is drug usage. This is a drug case; you've failed to go to treatment. You only reported from the records that I see for about two months and I don't know how many UAs you had in two months, but I would venture to say you didn't have that many. You had one that you were dirty .... [Y]ou stopped reporting in two months .... [T]here was some question in the substance abuse evaluation how accurate your recollection was with regard to your usage of drugs. I think that there was some conflicts, at least the evaluator believed that you said different things different times as to your drug usage, but definitely the recommendation was for completion of the intensive outpatient treatment program which you did not do.' " 52 Kan. App. 2d at 47 , 362 P.3d 603 . This court held that the district court's comments "simply repeat[ed] the type of reasoning historically relied upon by sentencing courts in discussing amenability to probation when exercising their discretion to revoke the privilege of probation.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 56 Kan. App. 2d 1268 - State v. Duran