8 Kan. App. 2d 615 - State v. Reed’s Empirical Analysis

1983

Citation profile

cited by 29 later decisions

states following

February 2016

most recently cited

29 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 29 later decisions — most recently February 2016 · most notably State v. Johnson (1998), 11 Kan. App. 2d 309 - State v. Fondren (1986)

29 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 Babich v. United States · State v. Lora · State v. Minor · Ellis v. Union Pacific Railroad · State v. Price

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

“"What is said in an opinion or the syllabus thereof always is to be read and interpreted in the light of the facts and questions present in the case. [Citations omitted.] Otherwise, language meaningful for one case may erroneously become dogma for other cases despite essential differences. [Citations omitted.]" State v. Reed, 8 Kan. App.2d 615, 623-624 , 663 P.2d 680 (1983).”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage
e.g. 9 Kan. App. 2d 404 - State v. Bristor · 14 Kan. App. 2d 740 - Gifford v. Farm Bureau Mutual Insurance
““Instruction No. 2 “The defendant is charged with aggravated burglary. The defendant pleads not guilty. “To establish this charge, each of the following claims must be proved: 1. That the defendant knowingly entered a residence at 1310 S.E. Washington, Topeka, Kansas; 2. That the defendant did so without authority; 3. That the defendant did so with the intent to commit theft therein; 4. That at the time, there was a human being in the residence at 1310 S.E. Washington, Topeka, Kansas; and 5. That this act occurred on or about the 24th day of September, 1992, in Shawnee County, Kansas.” “Instruction No. 3 “If you find the defendant is not guilty of aggravated burglary, you shall consider if he is guilty of an attempt to commit the crime of aggravated burglary. “To establish this charge, each of the following claims must be proved: 1. That the defendant performed an act toward the commission of the crime of aggravated burglary; 2. That the defendant did so with the intent to commit the crime of theft therein; 3. That the defendant failed to consummate its commission; and 4. That this act occurred on or about the 24th day of September, 1992, in Shawnee County, Kansas. “The elements of aggravated burglary are set forth in Instruction No. 2.””
1 later decision quote this exact passage
e.g. State v. Watson
““(1) knowingly and without authority entering into a building in which there is some human being, with intent to commit a felony or theft therein, or “(2) knowingly and without authority remaining within a building in which there is some human being, with intent to commit a felony or theft therein.” State v. Reed, 8 Kan. App. 2d 615, 622 , 663 P.2d 680 , rev. denied 234 Kan. 1077 (1983).”
1 later decision quote this exact passage
e.g. 10 Kan. App. 2d 470 - State v. Mogenson

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.