State v. Latham’s Empirical Analysis
1994
Citation profile
2 federal appellate · 14 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 16 later decisions — most recently February 2016
2 federal appellate · 14 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
Relies on State v. Burtzlaff · State v. Davi · State v. Dokken · State v. Bartlett · State v. Oster
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 16 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“Latham was claiming self defense. In order for him to prevail, the jury had to believe that he acted in response to a reasonable fear that Walker was going to harm him. See State v. Burtzlaff, 493 N.W.2d 1 (S.D.1992). SDCL 19-12-7 provides: In cases in which character or a trait of character of a person is an essential element of a charge, claim, or defense, proof may also be made of specific instances of his conduct. Under SDCL 19-12-7, specific instances of conduct relating to Walker’s violent nature when intoxicated were admissible to establish the reasonableness of Latham’s fear.... Latham was entitled to pi’esent appro-pi’iate evidence relating to specific instances of conduct in support of his claim of self defense. Latham needed to show that his fear of Walker was reasonable. However, only specific instances of conduct known to Latham at the time of the incident in question ivere relevant. State v. Dokken, 385 N.W.2d 493, 501 (S.D.1986).”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. State v. Knecht“(1) All of the elements of the included offense are lesser in number than the elements of the greater offense; (2) The penalty for the lesser included offense must be less than that of the greater offense; and (3) Both offenses must contain common elements so that the greater offense cannot be committed without also committing the lesser offense.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. State v. McGarrett“If one `knowingly caused' something, they did not `negligently cause' or `recklessly cause' it.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. State v. Giroux
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.