Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 635 P2D 786 - State v. Selig

State v. Selig’s Empirical Analysis

1981

Citation profile

28
cited by 28 later decisions
1
states following
January 2024
most recently cited

27 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 28 later decisions — most recently January 2024 · most notably State v. Keffer (1993), Jahnke v. State (1984)

27 state decisions

17019811990200020102020decided

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 Beck v. Alabama · Keeble v. United States · California v. Southland Royalty Co. · Canron, Inc. v. Plasser American Corp. · French v. Edwards

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

  1. “"This Court has held that a defendant is entitled to a lesser-included offense instruction when the following five elements are present: (1) a proper request is made; (2) the elements of the lesser offense are identical to part of the elements of the greater offense; (3) there is some evidence which would justify conviction of the lesser offense; (4) the proof on the element or elements differentiating the two crimes is sufficiently in dispute so that the jury may consistently find the defendant innocent of the greater and guilty of the lesser-included offense, and (5) there is mutuality, i.e., a charge may be demanded by either the United States or the defense. * * *" (Emphasis added.)”
    4 later decisions quote this exact passage
  2. ““ * * * [I]t is evident that in charging an intent to commit murder in the first degree there is necessarily included a charge of intent to commit murder in the second degree and voluntary manslaughter. “Under our statute murder in the first degree, murder in the second degree and manslaughter each involves a felonious killing; to constitute the first it must be done with premeditated malice; the second is a killing with malice, but with the element of premeditation omitted, while in the case of voluntary manslaughter there is an intentional killing but without any element of malice or premeditation. It is therefore evident, we think, that the intent to commit murder in the second degree is specifically and sufficiently charged in the information and proof of such intent fitted the allegation. And so of intent to commit manslaughter. Proof can not be made of assault with intent to commit murder in the first degree which does not at the same time furnish appropriate and sufficient evidence to sustain a verdict for the lower, or included offenses of assault with intent to commit murder in the second degree and manslaughter.””
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. ““A bill of exceptions is the exclusive means for the prosecution to seek review of an adverse ruling made during the trial. State v. Heberling, Wyo., 553 P.2d 1043 (1976); State v. Benales, Wyo., 365 P.2d 811 (1961); State v. Ginther, 53 Wyo. 17 , 77 P.2d 803 (1938); State ex rel. Gibson v. Cornwell, 14 Wyo. 526 , 85 P. 977 (1906). It is now a statutory proceeding, and the statutory requirements must be met. State v. Ginther, supra, and State ex rel. Gibson v. Cornwell, supra.””
    2 later decisions 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.