Rogers v. State’s Empirical Analysis
1954
Citation profile
34 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 36 later decisions — most recently July 1996 · most notably Hardin v. State (1962), Stinson v. Daniel (1967)
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 Forsha v. State · Owen v. State · Walden v. State · Tarvers v. State · Lee 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 36 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““. . . we nevertheless hold that a driver of an automobile while intoxicated and driving recklessly upon the public highway, will not be heard to say he had no intention of doing an injury to the person or property of another. The intent to commit a criminal act, . is evidenced by the act itself, so in the case at bar intent is evidenced (1) by the wilful drinking of intoxicating liquors, (2) knowingly driving an automobile while drunk at a dangerous and reckless rate of speed, to wit 60 and 70 miles an hour, and (3) with knowledge that his condition in thus driving was perilous to every person on the highway including the defendant himself. It would be a mockery of the law for one thus guilty of violating the criminal laws of the State, enacted for the protection of human life, to say he could not foresee the consequence of his act.””
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Staggs v. State · Layne v. State“... . Every case must be governed by its own facts, and a decision made according to the demands of law.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“u* * * if the act done was an unlawful act, and the doing of it was directly perilous to human life, and so known to the wrong’-doer, that then there is implied such a high degree of conscious and willful recklessness as to amount to that malignity of heart constituting malice. The result may not have been intended, yet the deliberate and conscious doing of an act, the probable consequences of which was death, amounts to murder at common law. This is the doctrine of Lee v. State, ( 41 Tenn. 62 , 66), and it is fully supported by the common law authorities. ’ ’”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Eager 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.