55 Kan. App. 2d 630 - State v. Messner’s Empirical Analysis
2018
Citation profile
14
cited by 14 later decisions
1
states following
March 2024
most recently cited
14 state decisions
Relationships
Relies on Terry v. Ohio · Wong Sun v. United States · Delaware v. Prouse · Cady v. Dombrowski · 134 S. Ct. 1683 - Prado Navarette v. California
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 14 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“'divorced from the detection, investigation, or acquisition of evidence relating to the violation of a criminal statute.'”
3 later decisions quote this exact passagee.g. State v. Manwarren · State v. Ellis“so the protections of the Fourth Amendment are not emasculated.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“This rule is not simply a 'gotcha' from the appellate courts. The rule encourages litigants to fully present their cases to the trial court. All issues and claims are then tested by the adversarial process further refining and defining the facts and law in dispute. How can the district judge be expected to make a decision in consideration of arguments that are not brought before him or her? The rule also insures fundamental fairness in the proceeding. Parties deserve the opportunity to respond to all arguments made and present evidence to support their respective positions. If litigants can raise a matter for the first time on appeal, they would be free to, in essence, readjudicate the matter merely because they forgot to raise everything they wanted to before the trial court or second-guessed their tactical decisions at trial once they started preparing their appellate brief. Just as we do not expect trial courts to support trial by ambush, neither should we tolerate the same on appeal. An appellant is not 'permitted to feed one can of worms to the trial judge and another to the appellate court.' Kennedy v. Commonwealth, 544 S.W.2d 219, 222 (Ky. 1976), overruled on other grounds by Wilburn v. Commonwealth, 312 S.W.3d 321 (Ky. 2010).”
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.