Houston v. State’s Empirical Analysis
1979
Citation profile
47 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 47 later decisions — most recently December 2012 · most notably 171 W. Va. 329 - State v. Jackson (1982), 115 Wash. 2d 457 - State v. Pawlyk (1990)
47 state decisions — followed in 15 states
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. Wade · United States v. Nobles · Gotthelf v. Commissioner · H. K. Porter Co. v. National Labor Relations Board · United States v. Louisiana
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 47 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“Disclosures made to the attorney [by a defense-consulted expert] cannot be used to furnish proof of the government’s case. Disclosures made to the attorney’s expert should be equally unavailable, at least until he is placed on the witness stand. The attorney must be free to make an informed judgment with respect to the best course for the defense without the inhibition of creating a potential government witness. [[Image here]] If the state were allowed to subpoena [defense-consulted expert witnesses], the defense counsel’s initial effort to become fully informed as to the possibility or likelihood of ... valid ... defense[s] may be inhibited because of the potential that an adverse opinion will be used by the state.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage“aid in attaining the goal of accuracy in the trial * * *.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“Instruction 14 It is an affirmative defense to murder in the first degree, and murder in the second degree involving intent to cause serious physical injury or knowing conduct, if the defendant proves by a preponderance of the evidence that at the time of the homicidal act, he honestly but unreasonably believed that the circumstances were such that, had they been as he believed them to be, they would have constituted justification for the killing. As used in these instructions affirmative defense means that some evidence must be admitted which places in issue the defense, and the defendant then has the burden of establishing the defense by a preponderance of the evidence. A killing done under an unreasonable belief as to justification reduces murder in the first degree, and murder in the second degree involving intent to cause serious physical injury or knowing conduct, to manslaughter; it is not a defense to murder in the second degree involving intentionally performing an act, or to manslaughter. Instruction 14(a) I will now define for you the law of self-defense. These instructions are only to be used in conjunction with instruction No. 14. They are not to be used as a defense to second degree murder involving intentionally performing an act or to manslaughter. A person may use deadly force upon another person when and to the extent that the person reasonably believes the use of deadly force is necessary to defend himself from death or serious physical injury. In order to ”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the dissente.g. Weston v. State
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.