Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 202 Md. 87 - Chisley v. State

Chisley v. State’s Empirical Analysis

1953

Citation profile

211
cited by 211 later decisions
2
cited 2 times by the Supreme Court
4
states following
February 2018
most recently cited

6 federal appellate · 203 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 211 later decisions (2 by the Supreme Court) — most recently February 2018 · most notably Witherspoon v. Illinois (1968), Tichnell v. State (1980)

6 federal appellate · 203 state decisions

7501953196019701980199020002010decided

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 Fisher v. United States · Commonwealth v. Simmons · Hopt v. People · Commonwealth v. Samuel Jones · Neusbaum v. State

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

  1. “"[i]n order to justify a conviction of murder in the first degree,... the jury must find the actual intent, the fully formed purpose to kill, with so much time for deliberation and premeditation as to convince them, that this purpose is not the immediate offspring of rashness and impetuous temper and that the mind has become fully conscious of its own design.””
    9 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. ““Malice has been defined in this connection as the intentional doing of a wrongful act to another without legal excuse or justification. It includes any wrongful act done wilfully or purposely.””
    3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “`Murder' is here recognized as a general denomination, including offenses differing from each other in their degrees of atrocity, but not in their nature or kind; no attempt is made to explain or modify its meaning or abridge its range. Its common law sense is left unimpaired; the measure of punishment only is sought to be graduated according to the circumstances under which it was committed.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority

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.