State v. Sears’s Empirical Analysis
1951
Citation profile
22 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 22 later decisions — most recently June 1993
22 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 State v. Mattio · State v. Aspara · State v. Capaci · State v. Brown · State v. Morgan
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 22 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““ * * * The intent in manslaughter, like that in murder, is specific but the penalty for the crime is not as severe because of the mental and physi cal excitement of the actor, produced by adequate cause. “The contention of defense counsel that the absence of malice aforethought is the element distinguishing manslaughter from murder is based on common law conceptions. * * * But, since malice aforethought has been omitted as an element of murder under our statutory definition, it follows that its absence in manslaughter can no longer be regarded as the distinguishing feature of the crimes. “The statements relied on by counsel, which are found in the cases of State v. Harper, 205 La. 228 , 17 So.2d 260 , and State v. Adams, 210 La. 782 , 28 So.2d 269 , are merely quotations of the common law distinction between murder and voluntary manslaughter and are not authority for the contention that malice is the essential difference between the crimes as defined by the Louisiana Criminal Code.””
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. State v. Fulghum““It is, of course, true that the ruling of the judge on the question- of whether a proper foundation has been laid to permit evidence of hostile demonstration or prior threats is reviewable by this court. State v. Brown, 172 La. 121 , 133 So. 383 ; State v. Maines, 183 La. 499 , 164 So. 321 and cases there cited. But it is also- established that this court will not reverse the ruling of the judge on this question of fact in the absence of manifest error (State v. Cox, 218 La. 277 , 49 So.2d 12 ) which we do not find to be present in the case at bar.””
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. State v. Terry
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.