Pate v. State’s Empirical Analysis
1944
Citation profile
28 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 30 later decisions — most recently October 1986 · most notably Newberry v. State (1977), Baker v. State (1949)
28 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 Allison v. State · Harris v. State · Ward v. State · Lowmack v. State · Hamer 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 30 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““It is urged by appellant that the lower court should have granted his motion for a peremptory instruction for a verdict of not guilty, because the evidence failed to disclose any intent to commit the crime charged. The testimony on behalf of the State tended to establish that appellant, without justification, struck Bryant in the neighborhood of his left eye with a blackjack, and that by reason of this blow his eye was severely injured and had to be removed. ‘Malice in law may be inferred from the absence of any just cause or excuse for the doing of an act which has caused injury to another.’ 34 Am. Jur. 685 . Men are presumed to intend the reasonable and natural consequences of their acts. Howard v. State, 34 Ark. 433 ; Hankins v. State, 103 Ark. 28 , 145 S. W. 524 ; Rhine v. State, 184 Ark. 220 , 42 S. W. 2d 8 . The jury had a right to assume from the proof as to the weapon used, the location of the injury and the lack of provocation or justification for the act that the maiming of Bryant was done maliciously and intentionally.””
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Kennedy v. State“Appellant complains that the trial court erred in not granting his request for an instruction on aggravated assault and assault and battery, because these misdemeanors were included in the crime of maiming charged in the information. The record as to this request is as follows: “Mr. Gean: ‘I ask the court to instruct the jury on aggravated assault and assault and battery.’ The court refused this request and the defendant excepted. Counsel did not submit written requests.” Counsel for appellant did submit numerous written instructions which the court was requested to give.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Bosnick v. State“* * * if appellant desired an instruction, he should have submitted one to the court “setting forth a proper statement of the law in that particular, and, not having done this, he cannot complain of the court’s failure to give such instruction.””
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Bosnick v. State
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.