Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 331 N.C. 239 - State v. Locklear

State v. Locklear’s Empirical Analysis

1992

Citation profile

80
cited by 80 later decisions
1
states following
June 2018
most recently cited

80 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 80 later decisions — most recently June 2018 · most notably State v. Conaway (1995), State v. Cummings (2000)

80 state decisions

440199220002010decided

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 In the Matter of Samuel Winship · Wainwright v. Witt · Sandstrom v. Montana · Francis v. Franklin · Lord Electric Co. v. United States

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

  1. “[i]t is an accepted principle of law that where one is engaged in an affray with another and unintentionally kills a bystander or a third person, his act shall be interpreted with reference to his intent and conduct towards his adversary. Criminal liability, if any, and the degree of homicide must be thereby determined. Such a person is guilty or innocent exactly as [if] the fatal act had caused the death of his adversary. It has been aptly stated that “The malice or intent follows the bullet.””
    3 later decisions quote this exact passage
  2. “it is immaterial whether the defendant intended injury to the person actually harmed; if he in fact acted with the required mental element toward someone, that intent suffices as the intent element of the crime charged as a matter of substantive law.”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage
  3. “'[w]hether to allow a challenge for cause in jury selection is . . . ordinarily left to the sound discretion of the trial court which will not be reversed on appeal except for abuse of discretion.'”
    2 later decisions 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.