State v. Phillips’s Empirical Analysis
1965
Citation profile
83 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 87 later decisions — most recently October 2018 · most notably State v. Wilkerson (1978), State v. Hankerson (1975)
83 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. Faust · State v. Foust · State v. Gordon · State v. Brooks · State v. . Benson
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 87 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“`[w]here the death of a human being is the result of accident or misadventure, in the true meaning of the term, no criminal responsibility attaches to the act of the slayer.'”
4 later decisions quote this exact passagee.g. State v. Caddell · State v. Fowler““[W]hen it is proved or admitted that one killed another intentionally, with a deadly weapon, the burden of showing justification, excuse or mitigation is on him, and all the circumstances of such justification, excuse or mitigation are to be satisfactorily proved by him, unless they appear in the evidence against him; that the fact of killing being proved or admitted, nothing more appearing, the law presumes such killing to have been done in malice, and so to be murder; that the circumstances of justification, excuse or mitigation, are to be satisfactorily proved, not proved as the State is required to prove an essential fact, that is beyond a reasonable doubt, for the doctrine of reasonable doubt is never applied to the condemnation of a prisoner, but to his acquittal; and that the jury must be satisfied by the testimony offered in the case on either side that the matter in justification, excuse or mitigation is true.” Id. at 26-27 . (Emphasis supplied.)”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. State v. Hankerson““When the killing with a deadly weapon is admitted or established, two presumptions arise: (1) that the killing was unlawful; (2) that it was done with malice; and an unlawful killing with malice is murder in the second degree. ... A specific intent to kill, while a necessary constituent of the elements of premeditation and deliberation in first degree murder, is not an element of second degree murder or manslaughter. The intentional use of a deadly weapon as a weapon, when death proximately results from such use, gives rise to the presumption. S. v. Quick, 150 N.C. 820 , 64 S.E. 168 . The presumptions do not arise if an instrument, which is per se or may be a deadly weapon, is not intentionally used as a weapon, e.g., from an accidental discharge of a shotgun.””
1 later decision quote this exact passage
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.