9 Kan. App. 2d 371 - State v. Alvarez’s Empirical Analysis
1984
Citation profile
5 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 6 later decisions — most recently July 2009
5 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 4 Kan. App. 2d 130 - State v. Stoops · State v. Smith · State v. Saylor · State v. Moore · State v. Karney
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 6 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““When the charge was receiving stolen property, the common law placed venue in the county where the property was received. 22 C.J.S., Criminal Law § 185 (22), p. 483; State v. Rider, 46 Kan. 332 , 26 Pac. 745 (1891). “K.S.A. 22-2609 is simply a statutory statement of the general rule that a charge of larceny may be prosecuted in the county where the theft occurred, or in any 'other county into which the thief has brought the property. That statute was not intended to expand that general rule by allowing one to be prosecuted for receiving stolen property in any county other than that where the property was allegedly received.” 9 Kan. App. 2d at 374-75 .”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. State v. Martinez
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.