State v. Abbott’s Empirical Analysis
1961
Citation profile
3 federal appellate · 83 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 86 later decisions — most recently June 2017 · most notably State v. Kelly (1984), Busik v. Levine (1973)
3 federal appellate · 83 state decisions — followed in 10 states
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 James Brown v. State of New Jersey · Brown v. United States · State v. Pontery · State v. Hipplewith · State v. Riley
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 86 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“There has been some uncertainty in the language of our cases upon the burden of proof with respect to self-defense. The decisions are treated in State v. Chiarello, 69 N.J. Super. 479 [ 174 A. 2d 506 ] (1961), where the Appellate Division correctly said that although the burden is upon a defendant to adduce evidence to support the defense, yet if such evidence appears either in the State's case or upon the defendant's case, the issue must be left to the jury with this instruction: that the burden is upon the State to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defense is untrue, and hence there must be an acquittal if there is a reasonable doubt as to whether defendant did act in self-defense within the definition of that defense. [ Id. ].”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“force which the actor uses with the purpose of causing or which he knows to create a substantial risk of causing death or serious bodily harm.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“"The objection that the question was `leading' was unsound. In a sense every question is `leading.' If interrogation did not lead, a trial would get nowhere. Indeed one vice of a question such as, `What is your position in this case?,' is that is does not lead enough, and thus would deny the opposing party an opportunity to guard against the rankest kind of improper proof. A question must invite the witness's attention to something. No formula can be stated with confidence that it will embrace all situations. But it may be said that ordinarily a question is not improperly leading unless it suggests what the answer should be or contains facts which in the circumstances can and should originate with the witness. See generally McCormick, Evidence § 6 (1954); 3 Wigmore, Evidence §§ 769-72 (3d ed. 1940). The question whether Abbott intentionally struck any of the Scaranos with the ax was perfectly proper; we do not see how else it could be phrased. Cf. State v. Len, 108 N.J.L. 439, 440 , 158 A. 749 (Sup.Ct. 1932)." State v. Abbott, 36 N.J. 63 , 174 A.2d 881, 889 (1961).”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
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.