State v. Stewart’s Empirical Analysis
1988
Citation profile
4 federal appellate · 4 district · 40 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 56 later decisions — most recently March 2020 · most notably State v. Thomas (1997), State v. Tyler (1992)
4 federal appellate · 4 district · 40 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. Childers · State v. Hodges · State v. Hill · Jahnke v. State · State v. Hundley
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 56 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“The first prong is subjective and requires a showing that the defendant sincerely and honestly believed it necessary to kill to defend himself. The second prong is an objective standard and requires a showing that a reasonable person in the defendant’s circumstances would have perceived self-defense as necessary.”
6 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Wilson v. Meeks · State v. Ricks“No one can attack and kill another because he may fear injury at some future time. The perceived imminent danger [must] occur ... during the time in which the defendant and the deceased were engaged in their final conflict. [[Image here]] Because of [a] prior history of abuse, and [because of] the difference in strength and size between the abused and the abuser, the accused in such cases may choose to defend during a momentary lull in the abuse, rather than during [an active] conflict. ... However, in order to warrant the giving of a self-defense instruction, the facts of the case must still show that the spouse was in imminent danger close to the time of the killing.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Xi Van Ha v. State“We must, therefore, hold that when a battered woman kills her sleeping spouse when there is no imminent danger, the killing is not reasonably necessary and a self-defense instruction may not be given. To hold otherwise ... would in effect allow the execution of the abuser for past or future acts and conduct.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Xi Van Ha v. State
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.