State v. Ritter’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

20 state decisions

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

1. ““More immediately, the criminal statutes still recognize justification defenses as factual remedies for official misconduct. Resistance to ‘excessive force’ by an officer acting under color of law is a factual defense to any criminal charge arising from the resistance. NDCC 12.1-05-03(1). Specifically, where the charge is preventing arrest, as in this case, the defining statute authorizes ‘a defense to a prosecution under this section that the public servant was not acting lawfully...NDCC 12.1-08-02(2). Factual defenses remain as remedies for unlawful official conduct. “These defenses do not depend on judicial suppression of evidence or dismissal of charges. Rather, they depend upon full presentation of the facts to the trier of fact, usually the jury, for determination of the independent nature of the charged offense. Official misconduct is a justification defense to a charge of resisting arrest.” (Footnote omitted).”

   5 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the concurrence
   e.g. State v. Glaesman · State v. DuPaul

2. ““1. A person is guilty of a class A misdemeanor if, with intent to prevent a public servant from effecting an arrest of himself or another for a misdemeanor or infraction, or from discharging any other official duty, he creates a substantial risk of bodily injury to the public servant or to anyone except himself, or employs means justifying or requiring substantial force to overcome resistance to effecting the arrest or the discharge of the duty.””

   3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the concurrence
   e.g. State v. DuPaul · North Dakota Department of Transportation v. DuPaul

3. “This section singles out and treats specially physical interference with an arrest. The conflicts in present federal law on the right to resist arrest are resolved under §§ 1301 and 1302 and under § 603(a), which deals with self-defense; these sections provide a consistent pattern of affording protection from risk of serious injury to an officer engaged in his duty in good faith and under color of law.... Slight interferences which create no substantial risk to the officer are not offenses under this section. The section proscribes conduct against a public servant executing a warrant or other process in “good faith, under color of law”. Conduct in response to otherwise unlaxoful acts of a public servant is governed by the provi sions generally applicable to use of force. The circumstances under which there is justification for use of force against a federal law enforcement officer in such cases are limited by § 603(a).”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the concurrence
   e.g. State v. Mathre