Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 575 N.W.2d 828 - State v. Hare

State v. Hare’s Empirical Analysis

1998

Citation profile

15
cited by 15 later decisions
4
states following
July 2017
most recently cited

2 federal appellate · 13 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 15 later decisions — most recently July 2017

2 federal appellate · 13 state decisions

60199820002010decided

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. Turnipseed · Alholm v. Wilt · State v. Edwards · State v. Sanders · State v. Pendleton

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

  1. “Hare contends that the trial court should have given [the nondeadly force self defense instruction] in this case because he claimed that [the victim’s] death was accidental. This contention has merit. We have repeatedly cautioned trial courts that when a defendant, asserting self-defense, claims that the resulting death was unintentional, [the deadly force self defense instruction] is inappropriate and that [the nondeadly force self defense instruction] is likely to better fit the facts of the case. For example, ... this court noted that [the deadly force self defense instruction] is useful only when the death was intended. * * * When a defendant claims that he pointed a gun in self-defense but that the shooting was accidental, [the deadly force self defense instruction] clearly does not fit. Likewise, ... this court made it clear that if a defendant claims that he intentionally stabbed the victim in self-defense but without intending to kill the victim, the language in [the deadly force self defense instruction] providing, “the killing must have been done in the belief that * * * ” is inappropriate because it implies that the defendant must believe it necessary to kill in order for the killing to be justified.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  2. “[Reasonable force may be used upon or toward the person of another without the other’s consent when the following circumstances exist or the actor reasonably believes them to exist: • ⅝ ⅜ ⅝ * (3) when used by any person in resisting or aiding another to resist an offense against the person; or (4) when used by any person in lawful possession of real or personal property, or by another assisting the person in lawful possession, in resisting a trespass upon or other unlawful interference with such property.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  3. “The intentional taking of the life of another is not authorized by section 609.06, except when necessary in resisting or preventing an offense which the actor reasonably believes exposes the actor or another to great bodily harm or death, or preventing the commission of a felony in the actor’s place of abode.”
    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.