Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 706 SW2D 582 - State v. Diener

State v. Diener’s Empirical Analysis

1986

Citation profile

6
cited by 6 later decisions
1
states following
May 1994
most recently cited

6 state decisions

Relationships

Relies on United States v. Dorrell · State v. Collins · 13 Mass. App. Ct. 373 - Commonwealth v. Brugmann · State v. Kirkland · State v. Bullington

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

  1. “[C]onduct which would otherwise constitute any crime other than a class A felony or murder is justifiable and not criminal when it is necessary as an emergency measure to avoid an imminent public or private injury which is about to occur by reason of a situation occasioned or developed through no fault of the actor, and which is of such gravity that, according to ordinary standards of intelligence and morality, the desirability of avoiding injury outweighs the desirability of avoiding the injury sought to be prevented by the statute defining the crime.”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage
  2. “1. If defendant announces that he is ready for trial and files a request for a speedy trial, then the court shall set the case for trial as soon as reasonably possible thereafter. 2. The provisions of this section shall be enforceable by mandamus. Neither the failure to comply with this section nor the state’s failure to prosecute shall be grounds for the dismissal of the indictment or information unless the court also finds that the defendant has been denied his constitutional right to a speedy trial.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  3. “[T]he application of the defense is limited to the following circumstances: (1) the defendant is faced with a clear and imminent danger, not one which is debatable or speculative; (2) the defendant can reasonably expect that his action will be effective as the direct cause of abating the danger; (3) there is no legal alternative which will be effective in abating the danger; and (4) the legislature has not acted to preclude the defense by a clear and deliberate choice regarding the values at issue. 3”
    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.