7 Kan. App. 2d 685 - State v. Chilcote’s Empirical Analysis
1982
Citation profile
2 district · 26 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 28 later decisions — most recently July 2009 · most notably State v. Dubish (1985), State v. McNaught (1986)
2 district · 26 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 Aguilar v. Texas · Spinelli v. United States · State v. Freeman · Denison State Bank v. Madeira · State v. Wilson & Wentworth
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 28 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““(2) Except as provided in subsection (3), whenever any person has been found guilty of a crime, the court may adjudge any of the following: (a) Commit the defendant to the custody of the secretary of corrections . . . (c) release the defendant on probation subject to such conditions as the court may deem appropriate, including orders requiring full or partial restitution. ... (d) suspend the imposition of the sentence subject to such conditions as the court may deem appropriate, including orders requiring full or partial restitution. . . . (i) impose anv appropriate combination of (a), (b), (c), (d), (e), (f), (g) or (h).””
3 later decisions quote this exact passagee.g. State v. DeHerrera · State v. Post““(4) In addition to any other conditions of probation or suspension of sentence, the court shall order the defendant to comply with each of the following conditions: “(a) Make reparation or restitution to the aggrieved party for the damage or loss caused by the defendant’s crime, in an amount and manner determined by the court, unless the court finds compelling circumstances which would render a plan of reparation or restitution unworkable . . . (Emphasis supplied.)”
3 later decisions quote this exact passagee.g. State v. Bowers · Tucker v. State““ ‘The use of the word “appropriate” implies that the combination of penalties under the statute should be harmonious. Thus the trial court may not impose imprisonment, which mandates incarceration, with either probation or suspension of sentence, because to do so would be to decree mutually exclusive penalties. As we construe the statute, restitution may only be ordered in conjunction with probation or suspended sentence.’ ” (Emphasis added.) 238 Kan. 588 -89.”
3 later decisions 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.