Beard v. United States’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

46 federal appellate · 133 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 230 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “. must do everything in his power consistent with his safety to avoid the danger and avoid the necessity of taking life. If one has reason to believe that he will be attacked in a manner which threatens him with bodily injury, he must avoid the attack if it is possible to do so, and the right of self-defense does not arise until he has done everything in his power to prevent its necessity, (emphasis added) Now, if the defendant did not provoke the attack, or if the defendant was not the aggressor and if he had reasonable grounds to believe and actually did believe that he was in eminent (sic) danger of death or serious bodily harm, and that deadly force was necessary to repel such danger, he would not necessarily be required to retreat or to consider whether he could safely retreat; but if the defendant could have safely retreated and did not do so, his failure to retreat is a circumstance which you may consider together with the other circumstances in the case, in determining whether he went farther in repelling the danger, real or apparent, than he was justified in doing under the circumstances.”

   8 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Wallace v. United States · Rowe v. United States

2. ““The law of self-defense is a law of proportions as well as a law of necessity, and it is only danger that is deadly in its character, or that may produce great bodily harm, against which you can exercise a deadly attack. If he is attacked by another in such a way as to denote a purpose to take away his life, or to do him some great bodily harm from which death or permanent injury may follow, in such a case'he may lawfully kill the assailant. When-' Provided he use all the means in his power otherwise to save his own iife or prevent the intended harm, such as retreating as far as he can, or disabling him without killing him, if it be in his power. The act coming from the assailant must be a deadly act, or an act that would produce great violence to the person, under this proposition. It means an act that is hurled against him, and that he has not created it, or created the necessity for it by his own wrongful, deadly or dangerous conduct—conduct threatening life. It must be an act where he cannot avoid the consequences. If he can, he must avoid them, if he can. reasonably do so with due regard to Ms own safety.””

   3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Alberty v. United States · Rowe v. United States

3. ““The weight of modern authority, in our judgment, establishes the doctrine that, when a person, being without fault, and in a place where he has a right to be, is violently assaulted, he may, without retreating, repel force by force; and if, in the reasonable exercise of his right of self-defense, his assailant is killed, he is justifiable.” 6 Ariz. at 244 , 56 P. at 739 .”

   3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. State v. Renner · State v. Borwick