State v. Jessen’s Empirical Analysis
1981
Citation profile
74 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 74 later decisions — most recently August 2022 · most notably State v. Chapple (1983), State v. Poland (1985)
74 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 Brady v. State of Maryland · United States v. Agurs · Branzburg v. Hayes · Brown v. United States · Beard v. United States
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 74 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““The defendant was justified in using or threatening physical force in self defense, if the following two conditions existed: Number one; a reasonable person in the defendant’s situation would have believed that physical force was immediately necessary to protect against another’s use or attempted use of physical force; and, number two, the defendant used or threatened no more physical force than would have appeared necessary to a reasonable person. However, a person may use deadly physical force in self defense only to protect himself from another’s use of deadly physical force. Self defense justifies the use or threat of physical force only while the apparent danger continues. The right to use physical force in self defense ends when the apparent danger ends. Actual danger is not necessary to justify the use of physical force in self defense. It is enough if a reasonable person in the defendant’s situation would have believed that he was in immediate physical danger.””
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. State v. Palomarez“Even if otherwise inadmissible hearsay underlying an expert opinion is introduced into evidence, it has only “the limited purpose of disclosing the basis for the opinion____” Comment to Rule 703, Arizona Rules of Evidence. The hearsay underlying the expert opinion has no substantive value. Hickok v. G.D. Searle & Co., 496 F.2d 444, 447 (10th Cir.1974).”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. State v. Lundstrom“No later than 10 days after the arraignment ... the prosecutor shall make available to the defendant for examination and reproduction ... [a]ll material or information which tends to mitigate or negate the defendant’s guilt as to the offense charged, or which would tend to reduce the defendant’s punishment.[ 4 ]”
1 later decision quote this exact passage
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.