State v. Phelps’s Empirical Analysis
1941
Citation profile
14 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 14 later decisions — most recently July 1961
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 State v. Gloyd · State v. Custer · State v. Phelps · State v. Bowser · State v. Emory
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.
““Instruction No. 3. “You are instructed that the law of Kansas in Section 21-420 provides: ‘Every other killing of a human being, by the act, procurement or culpable negligence of another, which would be manslaughter at the common law, and which is not excusable or Justifiable, or is not declared in this article to be manslaughter in some other degree, shall be deemed manslaughter in the fourth degree.’ “Instruction No. 4. “Since in Instruction No. 3 the phrase, ‘manslaughter at the common law’ has been used, it is necessary to define such expression, since the charge on which defendant is being tried in this case is that set out in our statute as shown in Section 21-420 and you are instructed that manslaughter at the common law is defined as the unlawful killing of another without malice, express or implied, which may be either voluntary under a sudden heat, or involuntary but in the commission of some unlawful act. The common law did not sanction the 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; and to be reckless within the provisions of the definition, the conduct must he as to evince disregard of or indifference to consesequences under circumstances involving danger to life or safety of others, al though no harm was intended. Consequently, you will limit your consideration in this case to the alleged acts of negligence which have been shown, if you f”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. State v. Brooks
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.