State v. Blue’s Empirical Analysis
2002
Citation profile
17
cited by 17 later decisions
2
states following
May 2019
most recently cited
17 state decisions
Relationships
Relies on State v. Norris · State v. Johnson · State v. Everette · State v. Frizzelle · State v. McCombs
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 17 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“(a) A lawful occupant within a home or other place of residence is justified in using any degree of force that the occupant reasonabl y believes is necessary, including deadly force, against an intruder to prevent a forcible entry into the home or residence or to terminate the intruder's unlawful entry (i) if the occupant reasonably apprehends that the intruder may kill or inflict serious bodily harm to the occupant or others in the home or residence, or (ii) if the occupant reasonably believes that the intruder intends to commit a felony in the home or residence.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the dissent“broadened the defense of habitation to make the use of deadly force justifiable whether to prevent unlawful entry into the home or to terminate an unlawful entry by an intruder.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“Now, as to each of these three charges, you will have the following choices. To find the defendant guilty of assault with a firearm on a law enforcement officer, and then the named officer; or, assault — I’m sorry — guilt of assault by pointing a gun; or, not guilty. The defendant has been accused of assault with a firearm on a law enforcement officer, three counts. Now, I charge that for you to find the defendant guilty of any of these three counts, the State must prove five things beyond a reasonable doubt. As I said before, they must prove those five things in each of those separate three counts which you will consider separately. First, that the defendant assaulted the victim intentionally and without justification or excuse, by pointing a firearm at him, or by discharging a firearm at him, or both. Second, that the assault was committed with a firearm. Third, that the victim was a law enforcement officer. Fourth, that the defendant knew or had reasonable grounds to know that the victim was a law enforcement officer. And fifth, that the victim was in the performance of his duties. Executing or serving a search warrant is a duty. Now, the defendant’s actions are excused and he is not guilty if he acted in self-defense. The State has the burden of proving from the evidence beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant’s action was not in self-defense. If you find from the evidence beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant assaulted the victim with deadly force, that is, f”
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.