Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 578 P2D 966 - Menard v. State

Menard v. State’s Empirical Analysis

1978

Citation profile

21
cited by 21 later decisions
2
states following
October 1998
most recently cited

21 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 21 later decisions — most recently October 1998

21 state decisions

120197819801990decided

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 Chapman v. State of California · Starnes v. Penrod Drilling Co. · Desist v. United States · Gotthelf v. Commissioner · Scalza v. United States

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

  1. ““It is reasonable to infer that a person ordinarily intends the natural and probable consequences of acts knowingly done or knowingly omitted. So unless the contrary appears from the evidence, the jury may draw the inference that the accused intended all the consequences which one standing in like circumstances and possessing like knowledge should reasonably have expected to result from any act knowingly done or knowingly omitted by the accused.””
    8 later decisions quote this exact passage
  2. “‘An assault is any unlawful physical force, partly or fully put in motion, creating a reasonable apprehension of immediate physical injury to a human being; as raising a cane to strike him, pointing in a threatening manner a loaded gun at him, and the like.’ Or, more tersely, an assault is thus defined by Wharton: ‘An assault is an intentional attempt to do an injury to another.’”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  3. “We are persuaded by the extensive criticism which this instruction has evoked. We hold that the giving of the Mann instruction is error, and we admonish Alaska trial courts to cease using it. Like the Fifth Circuit, however, we decline to hold that this error will always be deemed reversible. 4”
    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.