Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 445 So. 2d 374 - Muro v. State

445 So. 2d 374 - Muro v. State’s Empirical Analysis

1984

Citation profile

7
cited by 7 later decisions
1
states following
July 2014
most recently cited

7 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 7 later decisions — most recently July 2014

7 state decisions

401984199020002010decided

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 43 Cal. App. 3d 823 - People v. Lovercamp · 397 So. 2d 648 - Palmes v. State · Motley v. State · Hand v. State · 412 So. 2d 347 - Bryant v. State

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 7 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. “(1) The prisoner is faced with a specific threat of death, forcible sexual attack or substantial bodily injury in the immediate future; (2) There is no time for a complaint to the authorities or there exists a history of futile complaints which make any result from such complaints illusory; (3) There is no time or opportunity to resort to the courts; (4) There is no evidence of force or violence used towards prison personnel or other “innocent” persons in the escape; and (5) The prisoner immediately reports to the proper authorities when he has attained a position of safety from the immediate threat.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  2. “b. The defendant left [the place of [his][her] confinement] [the vehicle in which [he][she] was being transported] [to] [from] [his][her] work on a public road] because [he][she] reasonably believed that escape was necessary to avoid the danger of death or serious injury, rather than with the intent to elude lawful authority. 5. The (crime charged) (lesser included offenses) must have been committed out of [duress] [necessity] to avoid the [danger] [emergency]. 6. The harm that the defendant avoided must outweigh the harm caused by committing the (crime charged) (lesser included offenses).”
    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.