State v. Phillips’s Empirical Analysis
1979
Citation profile
14 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 14 later decisions — most recently November 2004
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. Jackson · State v. Tindall · State v. Williams · State v. Robinson · State v. Randall
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 14 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“If you find and believe from the evidence beyond a reasonable doubt: First, that on July 15, 1980, the defendant with the aid of Anthony Dixon stole money in the charge of Larry Sater, and Second, that the defendant with the aid of Anthony Dixon threatened the immediate use of physical force on or against Larry Sater for the purpose of preventing resistance to the taking of the property, and Third, that in the course of stealing the property the defendant and Anthony Dixon were armed with deadly weapons, and Fourth, the defendant either before or during the commission of the offense of robbery in the first degree, with the purpose of promoting its commission, aided such other person in committing that offense, then you will find the defendant guilty of robbery in the first degree. However, if you do not find and believe from the evidence beyond a reasonable doubt each and all of these propositions, you must find the defendant not guilty of that offense. If you do find the defendant guilty of robbery in the first degree you will assess and declare the punishment at: 1. Life imprisonment, or 2. Imprisonment for a term of years fixed by you, but not less than ten years and not to exceed thirty years.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. State v. Flowers““The Court instructs the jury that law of self-defense does not imply the right of attack, nor will it permit acts done in retaliation or for revenge. Therefore, if you believe and find from the evidence beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant sought, brought on or voluntarily entered into a difficulty with Leon Hall for the purpose of wreaking vengeance upon him, or if you shall find and believe from the evidence beyond a reasonable doubt James Earl Worthan shot at Leon Hall at a time when he had no reasonable apprehension of immediate and impending injury to himself, and did so from a spirit of retaliation and revenge for the purpose of punishing Leon Hall, then the defendant cannot avail himself of the law of self-defense, and you should not acquit the defendant on that ground.””
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. State v. Worthan“[I]f we are to have a system of patterned instructions, those patterned instructions must be followed. To invite one unapproved ‘improvement’ invites more unapproved, nonuniform ‘improvements.’ Ultimately, the result would be no patterned instructions. Patterned instructions serve to clarify the law as succinctly and clearly as possible. To invite additions, in areas covered by MAI civil or criminal, is to invite confusion.”
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.