Mullendore v. State’s Empirical Analysis
1945
Citation profile
5 federal appellate · 62 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 72 later decisions — most recently October 2005 · most notably Edwards v. State (1976), State v. Buggs (1999)
5 federal appellate · 62 state decisions
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 Snow v. Starr · King v. State · Commonwealth v. Best · State v. Dickson · 6 Smith & H. 86 - Haskins v. Howard
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 72 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“"State's Special Request No. I The Court further charges you that the elements of premeditation and deliberation may be inferred from the circumstances of the killing. "State's Special Request No. II The Court further charges you that any unseemly conduct toward the corpse of the person slain, or any indignity offered it by the slayer, and also concealment of the body, are evidence of expressed malice, and of premeditation and deliberation in the slaying, depending, of course, upon the particular circumstances of the case."”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority““The attitude of obvious partisanship displayed by this nominally expert witness, furnishes convincing evidence of the wisdom of the rule laid down by this Court, that expert testimony is to be received ‘with great caution;’ (Fisher v. Travelers Insurance Co., 124 Tenn. 450, 505 , 138 S.W. 316 , 330, Ann.Cas. 1912D, 1246; Wilcox v. State, 94 Tenn. 106 , 28 S.W. 312 ) . . . .” 191 S.W .2d at 152.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Baldwin v. Knight“evidence that a person took the property of another after killing him and appropriated it to his own use, is sufficient to sustain a conviction of murder in an attempt to commit a robbery, though no previous purpose to rob appears, since his act raises a strong presumption that he intended to do what he afterwards voluntarily did.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. State v. Buggs
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.