Varnedare v. State’s Empirical Analysis
1978
Citation profile
34 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 48 later decisions (2 by the Supreme Court) — most recently October 1994 · most notably Mabry v. Johnson (1984), Mabry v. Johnson (1984)
34 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 Olles v. State · Robertson v. State · Dillard v. State · Meyers v. State · Stevens v. State
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 48 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“By amending § 41-207 to remove self-induced intoxication as a statutory defense, the legislature, in effect, reinstated any prior Arkansas common law on the subject . . . Therefore, under either the statutory provisions, of § 41-207, as the parties involved thought them to be, or under the case law, as expressed in Olles & Anderson v. State, the defense of self-induced intoxication was available to the appellant, if it rendered him incapable of forming the intent that was a necessary element of the crime.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. White v. State“By amending § 41-207 to remove self-induced intoxication as a statutory defense, the legislature in effect, reinstated any prior Arkansas common law on the subject. ... in crimes such as burglary, where a specific statutory intent is required, a different standard must be applied.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Bowen v. State“. . . Still, when an offense can be committed only by doing a particular thing with a specific intent, it may be shown that an accused was so drunk at the time of the crime that he could not have entertained or formed the necessary intent. . .”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Bowen 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.