Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 157 KAN 526 - State v. Thomas

State v. Thomas’s Empirical Analysis

1943

Citation profile

21
cited by 21 later decisions
3
states following
October 1979
most recently cited

19 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 21 later decisions — most recently October 1979

19 state decisions

801943195019601970decided

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. Myers · State v. McGaffin · State v. Linville · State v. Ball · State v. Witt

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

  1. ““(a) Maliciously Maliciously means wilfully doing a wrongful act without just cause or excuse. “(c) Wilfully Wilfully means conduct that is purposeful and intentional and not accidental.”1”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. ““Appellant contends that this evidence fails to show ‘malice aforethought’ which is an essential element of the offense. Ordinarily the only way that malice aforethought can be proved as a material element of a crime is by invoking the familiar presumption that a sane person intends to do that which in fact he does do, that he intends the reasonable consequences of his own voluntary acts, (citing cases) It was a fair inference for the jury to draw from the circumstances that defendant was maliciously predisposed towards Patterson by the language he used and by his coming towards Patterson with a knife in his hand. The statutory requisite of ‘malice aforethought’ in the section of the crimes act under present consideration does not fix any given length of time for engendering such malice before the violent act is committed. It can sufficiently be shown from the conduct of the accused, or the circumstances attending its commission, such as the use of profane language in addressing his victim and the drawing of knife with which to intimidate or attack him.” (p.527.)”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority

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.