State v. Schmidt’s Empirical Analysis
1914
Citation profile
22 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 22 later decisions — most recently December 1978
22 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 State v. Patterson · State v. Adams · State v. Horneman · In re Manning
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 22 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““They relate to separate crimes. The issues are not identical. Neither offense includes the other offense. In each information an act which constitutes an indispensable element of the crime is necessary to conviction which is different from any act necessary to conviction under the other. All the evidence necessary to prove the first charge would not establish the second, and all the evidence necessary to prove the second charge would not establish the other.” (p. 459.)”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. State v. Parise““Of course the state could not go further back than two years, except as to the fact of former conviction,” etc. (The State v. Schmidt, 92 Kan. 457, 461 , 140 Pac. 843 .)”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. State v. Parise
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.