Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 305 SO2D 333 - Wells v. State

Wells v. State’s Empirical Analysis

1974

Citation profile

28
cited by 28 later decisions
2
states following
October 2015
most recently cited

28 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 28 later decisions — most recently October 2015 · most notably 337 So. 2d 1242 - Jackson v. State (1976), 308 So. 2d 71 - Newell v. State (1975)

28 state decisions

8019741980199020002010decided

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 Gonzales v. Landon · Barnes v. State · Weathersby v. State · King v. State · Calicoat 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 28 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. “[t]respass is necessarily a component of every burglary. Implicit in the verdict finding defendant guilty of burglary is the finding that he was guilty of the constituent offense of trespass, Section 91-17-87, Mississippi Code Annotated (1972). Inasmuch as the jury has found the defendant guilty of the greater crime, and the evidence of defendant's guilt of trespass is conclusive, the judgment is affirmed as a conviction of trespass, and the case is remanded for sentencing on that charge. See Washington v. State, 222 Miss. 782 , 77 So.2d 260 (1955).”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  2. “In the case at bar, when the jury found the defendant guilty of murder, it necessarily found that defendant was guilty of homicide which was not justifiable or excusable, thus rejecting the defense of self defense and accident. If the case is remanded for a new trial on the indictment, the defendant would thereby be permitted to present to a second jury his defenses which were rejected by the first jury. We see no sound reason to remand for a new trial and thereby require the defendant to again be convicted of manslaughter before being punished.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  3. “"The killing of a human being, without malice, in the heat of passion, but in a cruel or unusual manner, or by the use of a dangerous weapon, without authority of law, and not in necessary self-defense, shall be manslaughter."”
    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.