State v. Eisenman’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

2 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 2 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““Under Montana law if a homicide is to be justified by self-defense there must be evidence that the party killing acted under the influence of a reasonable fear that someone was going to be murdered or seriously injured. [Citing authorities] In this case there is no evidence whatever that the defendant acted under a reasonable apprehension of death or great bodily harm. The witnesses for the State gave no indication that the defendant did the killing in fear nor did the defendant himself claim that he acted under any fear of harm. ■“Instructions must have relation to the facts given in a particular case. State v. Evans, 60 Mont. 367 , 199 P. 440 . Although instructions may state a correct principle of law, if they are not based upon or in conformity with the issues or facts raised or supported by the evidence they ought not to be given. State v. Smith, 57 Mont. 563 , 190 P. 107 ; State v. Mitten, 36 Mont. 376 , 92 P. 969 . In this case Judge McClernan was correct in refusing to instruct on self-defense.””

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

2. ““According to appellant’s own version, she saw her husband waving a gun in their home and looking ‘goofy’. She testified that she tried to disarm him and in the ensuing scuffle and wrestling match, he was shot five times! At best she was claiming accidental shooting. She never claimed that she shot in defense of anything. There simply is no evidence supporting a self-defense theory.””

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