State v. Infantolino’s Empirical Analysis
1976
Citation profile
84 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 84 later decisions — most recently June 2017 · most notably Tarvis v. Moran (1988), State v. Cline (1979)
84 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 Commonwealth v. Amos · Rhode Island Ophthalmological Society v. Cannon · State v. Keaton · 58 Wis. 2d 144 - McMorris v. State · Martin v. Estrella
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 84 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““[t]he rules of law expressed in Martin , however, are equally applicable to a criminal proceeding. When a defendant has pleaded self-defense, he may introduce evidence of his adversary’s reputation for violent behavior in order to show either the reasonableness of the defendant’s fear at being injured or the fact that the adversary was the aggressor. If the defendant was aware of this reputation when he defended himself, this evidence is pertinent on both issues. If he was unaware, the evidence is limited to determining who was the aggressor.””
2 later decisions quote this exact passagee.g. State v. Fetzik · State v. Dellay““A charge to the jury should be confined to propositions of law related to material issues of fact which the evidence tends to support. The jury’s attention should not be directed to various propositions of law unless the record contains evidence which supports and requires it.” Id. at 307 , 355 A.2d at 724-25 .”
2 later decisions quote this exact passagee.g. State v. Innis · State v. Cline““[i]n fact, Infantolino made it quite clear that he drew his weapon only after he allegedly saw Neves [the victim] standing on the Pine Street sidewalk pointing a gun at him. He also stated that he had fired the two shots to ‘protect himself.’ Infantolino’s entire trial strategy was geared to the doctrine of self-defense. The defendant insisted that immediately after the fisticuffs Neves had threatened to kill him and when he encountered the deceased on the sidewalk, Nevés was pointing a gun at him. Diane [the victim’s girlfriend] testified that she also saw the deceased point a ‘square object’ at her boyfriend and that it appeared to be a gun.” Id. at 308 , 355 A.2d at 725 .”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. State v. Tribble
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.