United States v. Thompson’s Empirical Analysis
492 F.2d 359 · 1974
Citation profile
74 federal appellate · 1 district · 8 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 85 later decisions — most recently August 2019 · most notably State v. Whistnant (1980), United States v. Iron Shell (1980)
74 federal appellate · 1 district · 8 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
Applies 18 U.S.C. § 1111 · 18 U.S.C. § 1112 · 18 U.S.C. § 113 · 18 U.S.C. § 1153
Relies on Willard Dairy Corp. v. National Dairy Products Corp. · United States v. Whitaker · United States v. Thompson · Dennis Paul Hughes v. Harold R. Swenson, Warden
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 85 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“(1) a proper request is made; (2) the elements of the lesser offense are identical to part of the elements of the greater offense; (3) there is some evidence which would justify conviction of the lesser offense; (4) the proof on the element or elements differentiating the two crimes is sufficiently in dispute so that the jury may consistently find the defendant innocent of the greater and guilty of the lesser included offense; and (5) there is mutuality, i.e., a charge may be demanded by either the prosecution or the defense.”
17 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“(a) Manslaughter is the unlawful killing of a human being without malice. It is of two kinds; Voluntary — Upon a sudden quarrel or heat of passion. Involuntary — In the commission of an unlawful act not amounting to a felony, or in the commission in an unlawful manner, or without due caution and circumspection, of a lawful act which might produce death.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“Section 1153 of Title 18 of the United States Code provides that the offense of assault with a dangerous weapon is to be defined in accordance with the laws of the state in which the alleged crime was committed. The Cheyenne River Indian Reservation lies within South Dakota. Assault with a dangerous weapon under the applicable South Dakota statute requires [“jintent to injure” or “to do bodily harm.” Such intent, of course, can be found by the trier of fact from the objective circumstances, including the “visible conduct of the actor.” It may be found in the face of a denial by a defendant of such an intent, but it need not be. A defendant is entitled to have his testimony — that he did not intend to injure or to do bodily harm — considered by the jury. [Id. at 362-63.]”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
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.