State v. Flick’s Empirical Analysis
1981
Citation profile
1 district · 50 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 51 later decisions — most recently September 2021 · most notably Sippio v. State (1998), Hart v. State (1994)
1 district · 50 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 United States v. Harriss · Durham v. United States · United States v. Brawner · Washington v. United States · Commonwealth v. McCusker
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 51 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“In criminal cases, courts have frequently held that medical and psychiatric witnesses must not frame their testimony in terms of the legal conclusions to be drawn by the fact finder. .... Under M.R.Evid. 701 and 702, the presiding justice may exclude opinions which state legal conclusions, beyond the specialized knowledge of the expert. He may also exclude opinions which are arguably within the expert's specialized knowledge, but which are so conclusory, or so framed in terms of the legal conclusions to be drawn, that they will not "assist the trier of fact" (M.R.Evid. 702), or will pose a danger of confusing the jury which outweighs their probative value (M.R.Evid. 403), or if there is an insufficient factual basis to support the conclusions (M.R.Evid. 705(b)).”
2 later decisions quote this exact passagee.g. Hart v. State · State v. Michaud“The presiding justice may exclude an expert’s opinion under M.R.Evid. 702 if he finds that it would not be within the expert’s specialized knowledge or would not be helpful to the jury. He may also exclude it if he finds it irrelevant under M.R.Evid. 401 and 402, or if its probative value would be outweighed by the countervailing considerations of M.R.Evid. 403.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“1. A person is guilty of manslaughter if he: [[Image here]] B. Causes the death of another human being under circumstances which would otherwise be murder except that the actor causes the death while under the influence of extreme anger or extreme fear brought about by adequate provocation.”
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.