Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 598 S.W.2d 540 - State v. Baker

State v. Baker’s Empirical Analysis

1980

Citation profile

21
cited by 21 later decisions
7
states following
December 2010
most recently cited

2 federal appellate · 19 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 21 later decisions — most recently December 2010

2 federal appellate · 19 state decisions

1701980199020002010decided

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 United States v. Bailey · Mahan v. Howell · United States v. Kirby · 43 Cal. App. 3d 823 - People v. Lovercamp · 66 Ill. 2d 333 - People v. Unger

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. “[T]he defense of necessity [is] properly raised "when the offered evidence, if believed by the jury, would support a finding by them that the offense ... was justified by a reasonable fear of death or bodily harm so imminent or emergent that, according to ordinary standards of intelligence and morality, the desirability of avoiding the injury outweighs the desirability of avoiding the public injury arising from the offense committed ..." (emphasis added).”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage
  2. “to be important in the evidentiary matrix surrounding the defense: 1) a present and imminent danger, the definition of danger being based upon the facts of a defendant's confinement and the imminence of the danger not being solely based on a time interval but upon the entire fact situation; 2) exhaustion of remedies or evidence that attempts to do so had been futile and that the imminence of danger of threatened harm is such that no alternative is available; 3) evidence that the escapee did not use force or violence against innocent persons in perfecting the escape; 4) and a duty on the part of the escapee to surrender when the threatened danger has been avoided.”
    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.