Trentham v. State’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

15 state decisions

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

1. “In Potter v. State, 174 Tenn. 118 , at pages 127 and 128, 124 S.W.(2d) 232 , at page 236, the Court laid down the rule that not every casual or incidental driving on the wrong side of the road where a collision ensues, is there criminal liability, but made this further observation: “The test appears to be whether or not the driver, violating the highway statute in the particular above considered, does so consciously, or under circumstances which would charge a reasonably prudent person with appreciation of the fact and the anticipation of consequences injurious or fatal to others. For example, one who drives over the crest of a hill on the wrong side of the road, or who drives out from behind a line of congested traffic into the face of near approaching vehicles (as in the recently reported case of Reed v. State, 172 Tenn. 73 , 110 S.W.(2d) 308 ), can hardly be acquitted of criminal negligence on his plea of inadvertence. The demand for diligence and caution is too imperative under such conditions to be so excused. In this class of eases the defendant must be held to have knowingly violated the law, and must be held to the consequences, whether foreseen or not. Such cases call for application of a rule of unrebuttable presumption of conscious indifference.” 2 [[Image here]] In the present case, the defendant had no superior right upon this highway to the deceased. Their rights were equal. Each was entitled to half of the road, and when the defendant went across the middle lin”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. State v. Norris

2. ““Later on in his charge, the trial judge said: “The kind of negligence required to impose criminal liability must be of a higher degree than is required to establish negligence upon a mere civil issue; and allowance must be made for misadventure and accident as distinguished from culpable negligence; and before you can convict in this case upon this theory you must be convinced that a homicide was not improbable under the facts as they existed; and in order to convict for homicide it must appear that the death was not the result of misadventure but the natural and probable result of a reckless or culpably negligent act.’ We think the trial judge gave a fair and accurate charge that was free from error. The record discloses a willful and wanton disregard of human rights and safety, and presents a case where the willful acts that resulted were not only probable but could be reasonably expected. The assignments of error are all overruled and the judgment of the lower court is affirmed.””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Osborne v. State

3. “Continuing to operate his vehicle on a two-lane highway, at dusk, after losing control several times suggests that the Defendant was aware of, yet disregarded the risks of his conduct.... ‘The test appears to be whether or not the driver, violating the highway statute ... does so consciously, or under circumstances which would charge a reasonable prudent person with appreciation of the fact and the anticipation of consequences injurious or fatal to others.’”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. State v. Gillon