State v. Rome’s Empirical Analysis
1988
Citation profile
4 state decisions
Relationships
Relies on PruneYard Shopping Center v. Robins · 43 Cal. App. 3d 823 - People v. Lovercamp · 126 Cal. App. 3d 952 - People v. Patrick · United States v. Campbell · 194 Cal. App. 3d 955 - People v. Beach
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 4 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“A person may not be convicted of a crime based upon conduct in which he engaged because of the use or threatened use of unlawful force upon him or upon another person, which force or threatened use thereof a reasonable person in his situation would have been lawfully unable to resist.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“the trial court committed reversible error in prohibiting the introduction of any evidence relating to [Rome's] justification/necessity defense.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. State v. Rome
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.