State v. Studebaker’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

52 state decisions

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

1. ““The Court instructs the Jury that culpable negligence within the meaning of the law is the omission on the part of one person to do some act under given circumstances, which a very careful and prudent person would do under like circumstances, showing on the part of such person a careless or reckless disregard for human life or limb, or the doing pf some act under given circumstances which a very careful and prudent person under like circumstances would not do, showing on the part of such person a careless or reckless disregard for human life or limb, by reason of which omission or action another person is directly in danger in life or bodily safety.” (Italics added.)”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. State v. Cutshall · State v. Hinojosa

2. ““But it is evident a person ought not to be held responsible criminally for any and every negligent act that would subject him to civil liability for damages. Mere inattention or mistaken judgment resulting even in the death of another is not criminal unless the quality of the act makes it so. On the other hand, it is said carelessness may be so gross and wanton as to import malice in which case the homicidal act would be murder. * * * The extent to which the negligent act obviously imperils the life of another measures the state of mind of the doer in legal contemplation and therefore his criminality. * * * “In the zone between these two extremes — misadventure or mere civil liability, on the one hand, and carelessness so gross and wanton as to import malice, on the other, the killing of a human being by culpable negligence is manslaughter. The fundamental requirement fixing criminal responsibility is knowledge, actual or imputed, that the act of the slayer tended to endanger life. 13 R.C.L. § 161, p. 859. Or, as is said in 29 C.J. § 141, p. 1154, ‘It must be shown that a homicide was not improbable under the facts as they existed which should have influenced the conduct of accused.’ The rule is summed up in this way in State v. Tankcrsley, 172 N.C. 955 , 90 S.E. 781, 782 , L.R.A.1917C, 533, 535: “ ‘The decisions of the courts have described in different terms the kind of negligence required to constitute crime. In some of them it is said to be negligence that is “culpable a”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. State v. Beach

3. “defendant got all he was entitled to, if not more * * *.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. State v. Hinojosa