Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 272 NW2D 863 - State v. Reese

State v. Reese’s Empirical Analysis

1978

Citation profile

21
cited by 21 later decisions
8
states following
February 2015
most recently cited

21 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 21 later decisions — most recently February 2015

21 state decisions

9019781980199020002010decided

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 43 Cal. App. 3d 823 - People v. Lovercamp · 66 Ill. 2d 333 - People v. Unger · 69 Cal. App. 3d 999 - People v. Condley · State v. Mullen · 53 Mich. App. 482 - People v. Harmon

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. ““A limited defense of necessity is available if the following conditions exist: (1) The prisoner is faced with a specific threat of death, forcible sexual attack or substantial bodily injury in the immediate future; (2) There is no time for a complaint to the authorities or there exists a history of futile complaints which make any result from such complaints illusory; (3) There is not time or opportunity to resort to the courts; (4) There is no evidence of force or violence used towards prison personnel or other ‘innocent’ persons in the escape; and (5) The prisoner immediately reports to the proper authorities when he has attained a position of safety from the immediate threat.””
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage
  2. “[T]he right of defense of person and property is a constitutional right (article I, § 1, const. Iowa), and is recognized in the construction of all statutes. If in this case it was reasonably necessary for the defendant to kill the deer in question in order to prevent substantial injury to his property, such fact, we have no doubt would afford justification for the killing.”
    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.