State v. Hudson’s Empirical Analysis
1997
Citation profile
2 federal appellate · 26 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 28 later decisions — most recently December 2017 · most notably United States v. Peterson (2011), 181 N.C. App. 579 - State v. Replogle (2007)
2 federal appellate · 26 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 State v. Collins · State v. Weaver · State v. Redfern · State v. Banks · State v. Bell
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 28 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“The Defendant has been accused of involuntary manslaughter, which is the unintentional killing of a human being by culpable negligence. Now I charge that for you to find the Defendant is guilty of involuntary manslaughter, the State must prove three things beyond a reasonable doubt: First, that the Defendant violated the law of this state governing the operation of motor vehicles by operating a vehicle at a greater speed than is reasonable and prudent under the conditions then existing. Bail bondsmen can make an arrest; however, they may not violate the motor vehicle laws of North Carolina to do so. Second, that the Defendant’s violation constituted culpable negligence. The violation of a motor vehicle law which results in injury or death -will constitute culpable negligence if the violation is willful, wanton, or intentional. But, where there is an unintentional or inadvertent violation of the law, such violation standing alone does not constitute culpable negligence. The inadvertent or unintentional violation of the law must be accompanied by reckless of probable consequences of a dangerous nature, when tested by the rule of reasonable foresight, amounting altogether to a thoughtless disregard of consequences or a heedless indifference to the safety of others. Third, the State must prove that the Defendant’s intentional, willful, wanton or reckless violation of the law proximately caused the victim’s death.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. State v. McGee““[A]ll of the essential elements of the lesser crime must also be essential elements included in the greater crime. If the lesser crime has an essential element which is not completely covered by the greater crime, it is not a lesser[-]included offense. The determination is made on a definitional, not a factual basis.””
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.