Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 329 Mo. 1147 - Lehman v. Lambert

Lehman v. Lambert’s Empirical Analysis

1932

Citation profile

12
cited by 12 later decisions
2
states following
January 1977
most recently cited

12 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 12 later decisions — most recently January 1977

12 state decisions

4019321940195019601970decided

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 Morris v. McClellan · Bond v. Williams · Joice v. Branson · Renfro v. Barlow · Orscheln v. Scott

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

  1. “that while he admits that he struck plaintiff at the time alleged in the plaintiff's petition, he denies that such striking was unlawfully, willfully, maliciously and feloniously done, but avers the fact to be that he went to see plaintiff on a lawful mission, with a peaceful purpose, and to urge upon plaintiff that he cease and desist from using profane and vulgar language and in making insulting remarks in the hearing of the wife and daughter of the defendant and that in his attempt to talk to the plaintiff and reason with him about his offensive and unlawful conduct toward the family of the defendant, the plaintiff became enraged and suddenly reached for and sought to strike the defendant with a wrench or other dangerous and deadly weapon which he was carrying upon his cultivator, and defendant, realizing his peril and danger, was forced to and did strike the plaintiff in the necessary defense of his own person, and for his own safety, and that, in so doing, he used no more force than was necessary to repel plaintiff's assault upon himself.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  2. “had persisted in using profane and vulgar language and making insulting remarks in the hearing of the wife and daughters of defendant, and would take advantage of the absence of defendant from his home to thus humiliate, degrade and put in fear the wife and daughters of defendant, and defendant further says that his said family, by reason of the conduct and actions aforesaid of the plaintiff were put in fear and were greatly distressed and worried and reported the various acts and conduct hereinabove alleged of the plaintiff to this defendant, and, in order to get relief for his family from the taunts, insults, profane and vulgar language used by plaintiff, purposely, willfully and wantonly, as aforesaid, in the hearing of his said wife and family, and purposely directed by plaintiff toward them as an insult to them and to this defendant, this defendant was *Page 1049 driven to the necessity of seeking plaintiff out, as he did do, to induce plaintiff to cease and desist from his aforesaid mentioned acts and conduct. . . .”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  3. “as tending to show plaintiff's hostility to defendant, and consequently the reasonableness of the latter's apprehension of danger when he saw plaintiff reach for the wrench on the cultivator.”
    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.