State v. Custer’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

31 state decisions

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

1. ““The result was it came to be thoroughly understood that the system of thought known as the common law did not sanction conviction of a man of manslaughter resulting from negligent conduct, unless his conduct was accompanied by a wrong mental attitude having the qualities of recklessness.” (1. c. 387) “In defining common-law manslaughter it should not be necessary to fill instructions with ‘epithets.’ The term ‘reckless’ is not an epithet, but a descriptive adjective. The term ‘recklessness’ is a fairly understandable noun. Under the statute, as applied to automobile drivers, negligence is not merely conduct which fails to conform to the familiar, common standard, the conduct of a reasonable man under like circumstances. Negligence is conduct which is induced by recklessness, and which involves undue risk of harm. To be reckless, conduct must be such as to evince disregard of or indifference to consequences, under circumstances involving danger to life or safety of others, although no harm was intended.” (1. c. 395)”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Stout v. Gallemore · State v. Spohr

2. “'Where death results in consequence of a negligent act, it would seem that to create criminal responsibility the degree of negligence must be so gross as to amount to recklessness. Mere inadvertence, while it might create civil liability, would not suffice to create criminal liability. . . . . And it is not sufficient to create criminal liability to show that the act which caused death constituted a tort.'”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. State v. McMahan · State v. McMahan

3. “"Turning to the instructions given, and leaving out of consideration the tenth instruction, it is plain that what the lord chief justice of England warned against occurred in this case. Defendant was tried for culpable negligence, and not for manslaughter, and the theory was that if he was simply negligent he would be guilty. To approve the theory would be to strike from the statute the words `which would be manslaughter at the common law,' and the statute may not be so emasculated.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. State v. Champ