Dickins v. State’s Empirical Analysis
1949
Citation profile
36 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 36 later decisions — most recently June 2015 · most notably 475 So. 2d 1136 - Johnson v. State (1985), Culberson v. State (1979)
36 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 Slaughter v. Holsomback · Smith v. State · Winchester v. State · Sauer v. State · Dean 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 36 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““The Court further instructs the Jury for the State, that malice aforethought mentioned in the indictment may be presumed from the unlawful and deliberate use of a deadly weapon.” “The Court further instructs the Jury for the State, that the killing with a deadly weapon is assumed to be malicious, and therefore murder, and before the pre sumption disappears the facts of the killing must appear in the evidence and must change the character of the killing, either showing justification or necessity, before it is reduced from murder. If the facts relied upon to change such presumption are unreasonable and improbable, or if they are contradicted by physical facts and circumstances in evidence, then the Jury may find a verdict either of murder or manslaughter, according to the circumstances and facts in evidence. ’ ’ “The Court further instructs the Jury for the State, that to make a homicide justifiable on the grounds of self-defense, the danger to the slayer must be either actual, present, and urgent, or the slayer must have reasonable grounds to apprehend a design on the part of the Deceased to kill him, or to do him some great bodily harm, and, in addition to this, that there was imminent danger of such design being accomplished; and hence mere fear, apprehension, or belief, however sincerely entertained by one person, that another designs to take his life, or to do him some great bodily harm, will not justify the former in taking the life of the latter party. A party may have ”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“a verdict, therefore, found on circumstantial evidence, will always be permitted to stand unless it is opposed by a decided preponderance of the evidence, or is based on no evidence whatever.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“because it is always solemnly to be weighed and acted upon by their understandings and consciences, and is, from its very nature, the subject of inferences and conclusions in their minds,”
2 later decisions 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.