State v. Stueben’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

21 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 21 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “Though there is justification for the position that a simple, honest belief is all that is required by § 28-1409, which has its origin in the Model Penal Code, this court, since it was not specifically required to abandon the reasonable belief standard, declined to do so in a series of cases following the adoption of the statute. See, State v. Brown, 235 Neb. 374 , 455 N.W.2d 547 (1990); State v. Graham, 234 Neb. 275 , 450 N.W.2d 673 (1990); State v. Cowan, 204 Neb. 708 , 285 N.W.2d 113 (1979); State v. Eagle Thunder, 201 Neb. 206 , 266 N.W.2d 755 (1978). The Legislature has adhered to our construction for 20 years, and we are not constrained to abandon it now.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. State v. France

2. “(1) . . . [T]he use of force upon or toward another person is justifiable when the actor believes that such force is immediately necessary for the purpose of protecting himself [or herself] against the use of unlawful force by such other person on the present occasion. (4) The use of deadly force shall not be justifiable under this section unless the actor believes that such force is necessary to protect himself [or herself] against death____ (5) . . . [A] person employing protective force may estimate the necessity thereof under the circumstances as he [or she] believes them to be when the force is used____”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. State v. Thompson

3. “The court's consideration of an anticipated tax refund to the Stuebens and of Mrs. Stueben's financial contributions to the family's needs was not improper. The tax refund is a financial resource, and Mrs. Stueben's financial contributions alleviate appellant's financial and legal obligations. Thus, both are relevant to appellant's ability to pay restitution. We affirm the court's order of restitution.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 710 So. 2d 1357 - Culp v. State