State v. Sullivan’s Empirical Analysis
1997
Citation profile
11 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 11 later decisions — most recently March 2012
11 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 Commonwealth v. Burbank · State v. Davis · State v. Pelletier · State v. Case · State v. Smith
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 11 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“Pursuant to 17-A M.R.S.A. § 101(1) (1983), the State must disprove beyond a reasonable doubt any statutory defense “in issue as a result of evidence admitted at the trial which is sufficient to raise a reasonable doubt on the issue.” A defense is “in issue” within the meaning of section 101 if the evidence is “sufficient to make the existence of all the facts constituting the defense a reasonable hypothesis for the factfinder to entertain.” Either the State or the defense may introduce evidence that generates the State’s obligation.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passagee.g. State v. Mann · State v. Michaud“2. A person is justified in using deadly force upon another person: A. When the person reasonably believes it necessary and reasonably believes such other person is: (1) About to use unlawful, deadly force against the person or a 3rd person; C. However, a person is not justified in using deadly force as provided in paragraph A, if: (1) With the intent to cause physical harm to another, he provokes such other person to use unlawful deadly force against anyone;”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. State v. Michaud“If a defense provided under this chapter is precluded solely because the requirement that the actor’s belief be reasonable has not been met, he may be convicted only of a crime for which recklessness or criminal negligence suffices, depending on whether his holding the belief was reckless or criminally negligent.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. State v. Wilder
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.