Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 45 Wyo. 383 - State v. Radon

State v. Radon’s Empirical Analysis

1933

Citation profile

26
cited by 26 later decisions
3
states following
September 2009
most recently cited

24 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 26 later decisions — most recently September 2009 · most notably State v. Hart (1954), Jahnke v. State (1984)

24 state decisions

8019331940195019601970198019902000decided

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 Alford v. United States · State v. Payne · State v. Flory · State v. Wilson · Nicholson 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 26 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. “"`The jury is instructed that in order to excuse the defendant on the ground of self-defense, there must be some act or declaration at the time of the killing of the person on the part of the deceased to kill him or to do him great bodily harm '" (emphasis added), 19 P.2d at 181 ,”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage
  2. “"` The danger which will justify the killing of a human being must be actual, present and urgent, and appear to a reasonable mind to be actual, present and urgent.'" 19 P.2d at 181 .”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage
  3. ““ * * * The first part of the instruction refers to declarations of the deceased at the time of the shooting. The defendant did not claim that the deceased made any such declarations at the time of the homicide and reference thereto was not in accordance with the evidence. The rule which the court, perhaps, had in mind in giving the instruction is that stated in 30 C.J. 64 as follows: “ ‘But it is necessary that he (the deceased) shall have indicated by some overt act or hostile demonstration at the time of the killing a real or apparent intention to kill or inflict great bodily harm upon accused and thereby induced the latter to believe on reasonable grounds that he was in imminent danger and that it was necessary to kill and save himself.’ [[Image here]] “Some act, of course, had to take place to give the appearance of danger, and to give the defendant reasonable ground therefor. But an actual assault or attack on the defendant was not necessary, if the circumstances gave reasonable ground for apprehension of imminent danger. 30 C.J. 64. In the case at bar the deceased walked toward the defendant. He had a package in his hands, wrapped in paper. That, apparently, turned out to be a pair of gloves. Still, while there is no specific evidence of the size of the gloves, how the deceased held the package, and whether it gave the appearance that it contained a gun or other dangerous weapon, the defendant says that the attitude of deceased put him in fear, evidently intending to c”
    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.