Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 536 P2D 105 - State v. Campbell

State v. Campbell’s Empirical Analysis

1975

Citation profile

25
cited by 25 later decisions
1
states following
May 2025
most recently cited

1 federal appellate · 24 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 25 later decisions — most recently May 2025 · most notably Kimoktoak v. State (1978), State v. Rice (1981)

1 federal appellate · 24 state decisions

60197519801990200020102020decided

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. § 641 (Livestock Fraud Protection Act)

Relies on Morissette v. United States · State v. Lucero · Stock v. State · Speidel v. State · Tarnef 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 25 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. “'prohibits this court from enacting legislation or redrafting defective statutes'”
    3 later decisions quote this exact passage
  2. “The contention that an injury can amount to a crime only when inflicted by intention is no provincial or transient notion. It is as universal and persistent in mature systems of law as belief in freedom of the human will and a consequent ability and duty of the normal individual to choose between good and evil.... Crime, as a compound concept, generally constituted only from concurrence of an evil-meaning mind with an evil-doing hand, was congenial to an intense individualism and took deep and early root in American soil. As the states codified the common law of crimes, even if their enactments were silent on the subject, their courts assumed that the omission did not signify disapproval of the principle but merely recognized that intent was so inherent in the idea of the offense that it required no statutory affirmation. Courts, with little hesitation or division, found an implication of the requirement as to offenses that were taken over from the common law. The unanimity with which they have adhered to the central thought that wrongdoing must be conscious to be criminal is emphasized by the variety, disparity and confusion of their definitions of the requisite but elusive mental element.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  3. “Accordingly, we hold that to the extent that our decision in Campbell established the broad rule that criminal intent can be found by implication only in statutes which codify common law crimes, Campbell is overruled. Although we can conceive of cases where we may decline to imply such intent into statutes silent in this respect, hereafter we will resolve such questions on a case by case basis.”
    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.