Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 682 P2D 991 - Jahnke v. State

Jahnke v. State’s Empirical Analysis

1984

Citation profile

65
cited by 65 later decisions
12
states following
September 2017
most recently cited

1 federal appellate · 64 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 65 later decisions — most recently September 2017 · most notably Vaughn v. State (1998), 111 Ill. 2d 128 - People v. Wright (1986)

1 federal appellate · 64 state decisions — followed in 12 states

3401984199020002010decided

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 Starnes v. Penrod Drilling Co. · Continental Airlines, Inc. v. Zimmerman · Hutton v. United States · State v. True · Smith v. State

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

  1. ““Expert testimony is appropriate when the subject of inquiry is one which jurors of normal experience and qualifications as laymen would not be able to decide without the technical assistance of one having unusual knowledge of the subject by reason of skill, experience or education in the particular field. [Citations.] *** “The ultimate fact needed for a determination of the degree of the crime was the state of mind of the accused at the time of the shooting. Such a subjective conclusion must be found by the jury. The doctor could give jury members no more help than they already had from the facts. Under such circumstances, his conclusion was one which the jurors could draw for themselves. [Citation.] * * * ft”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the dissent
  2. ““The following are not excluded by the hearsay rule, even though the declarant is available as a witness: id # * * * * “(4) Statements for purposes of medical diagnosis or treatment.—Statements made for purposes of medical diagnosis or treatment and describing medical history, or past or present symptoms, pain, or sensations, or the inception or general character of the cause or external source thereof insofar as reasonably pertinent to diagnosis or treatment; * * * »”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the dissent
  3. “where the slayer, in the careful and proper use of his faculties, bona fide believes, and has reasonable ground to believe that he is in imminent danger of death or great bodily harm, and that his only means of escape from such danger will be by taking the life of his assailant, although in fact he is mistaken as to the existence or imminence of the danger.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the dissent

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.