Terrell v. State’s Empirical Analysis
1962
Citation profile
14 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 14 later decisions — most recently May 1993
14 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 Motlow v. State · 3 Smith & H. 544 - Darnell v. Shapard · Gatlinburg Beer Regulation Committee v. Ogle · Montague v. Thomason · Knowling v. State
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 14 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““We find it unnecessary to decide this issue, for the reason that we cannot agree with learned counsel that the burden was on the State to prove this negative, as to which the fact was peculiarly within the knowledge of the defendant. A distinction apparently overlooked is clearly recognized by the highest authorities on evidence between the obligation of the State to charge in the indictment the failure of the defendant to bring himself within the exception, or exempting proviso (here the procuring of the permit), and the obligation to prove this negative on the trial when the determinative fact is peculiarly within the knowledge of the defendant. We quote from Greenleaf’s Law of Ev. (15 Ed.) Sec. 79: “But where the subject-matter of a negative averment lies peculiarly within the knowledge of the other party, the averment is taken as true, unless disproved by that party. Such is the case in civil or criminal prosecutions for a penalty for doing an act which the statutes do not permit to be done by any persons, except those who are duly licensed therefor; as, for selling liquors, exercising a trade or profession, and the like. Here the party, if licensed, can immediately show it, without the least inconvenience; whereas, if proof of the negative were required, the inconvenience would be very great.” A number of cases are cited in the notes. And see 20 Am.Jur., paragraph 150, where it is said: “But where a negation is peculiarly within the knowledge of the defendant, .the burd”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Willerson v. State“It is well settled that it is incumbent upon a person attacking the constitutionality of a statute to carry the burden of proof.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. State v. Marshall
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.