Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 321 Md. 532 - Girouard v. State

Girouard v. State’s Empirical Analysis

1991

Citation profile

24
cited by 24 later decisions
2
states following
December 2013
most recently cited

24 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 24 later decisions — most recently December 2013

24 state decisions

100199120002010decided

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 Corallo v. United States · Commonwealth v. Nelson · Wright v. State · State v. Faulkner · State v. Ward

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 24 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. ““1. There must have been adequate provocation; 2. The killing must have been in the heat of passion; 3. It must have been a sudden heat of passion—that is, the killing must have followed the provocation before there had been a reasonable opportunity for the passion to cool; 4. There must have been a causal connection between the provocation, the passion, and the fatal act.””
    3 later decisions quote this exact passage
  2. “Insulting words or gestures, no matter how opprobrious, do not amount to an affray, and standing alone, do not constitute adequate provocation. Although there was evidence from which the jury could have found that Bucino had directed racial and derogatory comments toward Sims in the bar, this conduct did not constitute adequate provocation.”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage
  3. “We cannot in good conscience countenance holding that a verbal domestic argument ending in the death of one spouse can result in a conviction of manslaughter. We agree with the trial judge that social necessity dictates our holding. Domestic arguments easily escalate into furious fights. We perceive no reason for holding in favor of those who find the easiest way to end a domestic dispute is by killing the offending spouse.”
    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.