219 Mich. App. 299 - People v. Hack’s Empirical Analysis
1996
Citation profile
6
cited by 6 later decisions
1
states following
November 2017
most recently cited
4 state decisions
Relationships
Relies on Lorencz v. Ford Motor Co. · People v. Peterson · People v. Wakeford · 196 Mich. App. 604 - People v. Wilson · 212 Mich. App. 228 - People v. Lee
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 6 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“If D coerces X to commit a theft by threatening X 's life, X will be acquitted of larceny on the ground of duress. Today, and according to common law principles, D may be convicted of larceny. X was D 's innocent instrumentality. Therefore, at common law, D was the principal in the first degree of the offense. Conceptually, D's guilt is not founded on accomplice-liability principles . Instead, D is directly liable for committing the crime through the instrumentality; D 's guilt is not derived from another culpable person. X 's acquittal, therefore, presents no bar to the conviction of the only culpable party. [See Hack , 219 Mich. App. at 303 , 556 N.W.2d 187 (opinion by SAWYER, P.J.).]”
1 later decision 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.