State v. Lizotte’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

23 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 25 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““It matters not whether the defendant had or had not the intention later to carry out the threat. The essence of an oral threat is that it is a verbal act and if that act is of such a nature as to convey the menace to an ordinary hearer, the statute is violated.” (Emphasis added)”

   3 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. State v. Porter · State v. Hotham

2. “* * * that the word “threat” connotes “menace,” that “the circumstances under which the threat is uttered and the relations between the parties may be taken into consideration” and that “[t]he threat must also be such as would ordinarily create alarm.””

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. Postell v. United States · 677 So. 2d 1211 - Conkle v. State

3. “When the unlawful threat is knowingly and wilfully made, the offense is complete, so that the existence of an intention to carry out the threat, or a subsequent abandonment of the bad intent with which the threat was made, is immaterial. Although idle talk or jesting will not constitute the crime, the accused cannot be regarded as having used his language only as a joke because of the fact that he may have had no intention to carry out his threat. The motive which prompts the utterance of a threat is immaterial. To bring a case within the statute no evil purpose or malice is requisite other than an intention to give utter- anee to words which to the accused’s knowledge were in the form of, and would be naturally understood by the hearers, as being a threat. .”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Thomas v. Commonwealth