Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 176 CONN 227 - State v. Spates

State v. Spates’s Empirical Analysis

1978

Citation profile

97
cited by 97 later decisions
9
states following
February 2019
most recently cited

95 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 97 later decisions — most recently February 2019 · most notably State v. Ross (1994), State v. McCall (1982)

95 state decisions

45019781980199020002010decided

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 Cupp v. Naughten · Henderson v. Kibbe · Ellington v. Blumstein · State v. Ralls · State v. Leopold

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

  1. “"Proximate cause" in the criminal law does not necessarily mean the last act of cause, or the act in point of time nearest to death. The concept of proximate cause incorporates the notion that an accused may be charged with a criminal offense even though his acts were not the immediate cause of death. An act or omission to act is the proximate cause of death when it substantially and materially contributes, in a natural and continuous sequence, unbroken by an efficient, intervening cause, to the resulting death. It is the cause without which the death would not have occurred and the predominating cause, the substantial factor, from which death follows as a natural, direct and immediate consequence . . . . It is unnecessary for "proximate cause" purposes that the particular kind of harm that results from the defendant's act be intended by him. In many situations giving rise to criminal liability, the harm that results is unintended, yet is directly or indirectly caused by an act of the defendant. In such cases, where the death or injury caused by the defendant's conduct is a foreseeable and natural result of that conduct, the law considers the chain of legal causation unbroken and holds the defendant criminally responsible.”
    4 later decisions quote this exact passage
  2. “could convict the defendant of manslaughter if [it] found that the defendant inflicted emotional injury, stress or trauma which proximately caused [victim's] death”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage

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.