Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 177 IND 619 - Luther v. State

Luther v. State’s Empirical Analysis

1912

Citation profile

84
cited by 84 later decisions
6
states following
May 2018
most recently cited

82 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 84 later decisions — most recently May 2018 · most notably Tait v. State (1963), 93 Md. App. 422 - Lamb v. State (1992)

82 state decisions

17019121920193019401950196019701980199020002010decided

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 Deal v. State · Commonwealth v. Pierce · Christy v. Elliott · Aiken v. Holyoke Street Railway Co. · Palmer v. Chicago, St. Louis & Pittsburgh Railroad

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

  1. ““Intent on the part of the person charged, to apply the force constituting the battery, is, however, an essential element of the offense and must be shown to make the touching criminally unlawful. (Authorities). “But the intent may be inferred from circumstances which legitimately permit it. Intent to injure may not be implied from a lack of ordinary care. It may be from intentional acts, where the injury was the direct result of them, done under circumstances showing a reckless disregard for the safety of others, and a willingness to inflict the injury, or the commission of an unlawful act which leads directly and naturally to the injury”. (Our emphasis).”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  2. ““In these caSes of personal injury there is a constructive intention as to the consequences, which entering into the wilful, intentional act, the law imputes to the offender, and in this way, a charge which otherwise would be mere negligence, becomes, by reason of a reckless disregard of probable consequences, a wilful wrong. That this constructive intention to do an injury in such cases will be imputed in the absence of an actual intent to harm a particular person, is recognized as an elementary principle in criminal law.””
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  3. ““Automobiles and bicycles have equal rights on the streets, and equal rights in the use thereof with other vehicles. The drivers of automobiles and the drivers of other vehicles, including bicycles, owe a duty to others lawfully using the public streets and highways, and are required to exercise due care in the use of their vehicles not to injure others.””
    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.