724 So. 2d 1007 - Wade v. State’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

1 federal appellate · 10 state decisions

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

1. “While Wade was undoubtably mad, it is also clear that her ill will was engendered by the earlier unlawful acts of Simpson and what appeared to be a renewed attack. This clearly was a killing in the heat of passion and arguably a case of imperfect self-defense and as such, manslaughter was the appropriate verdict.”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. 748 So. 2d 771 - Wade v. State · 859 So. 2d 379 - Moore v. State

2. “(1) One who received threats against their [sic] life or person made by another is justified in acting more quickly and taking harsher measures for their [sic] own protection in the event, than would a person who did not receive such threats. Someone who has been threatened or harmed by a person in the past[ ] is justified in acting more quickly or taking greater self-defense measures against that person. If evidence concerning prior threats and prior acts of violence was known by Austin Branch at the time of the killing, you should consider such evidence in determining who was the aggressor, and the reasonableness of Austin Branch’s fear of death or great bodily injury. (2) Malice aforethought equates with deliberate design, which generally implies careful and unhurried consideration of the consequences along with calculation, planning[,] and contemplation. Malice cannot be formed at the immediate second of the fatal act. Deliberate design means intent to kill without authority of law and not being legally justifiable, legally excusable!,] or under circumstances that would reduce the act to a lesser crime. Malice is necessary for murder and must precede the unlawful act that is being attempted. If you find that the prosecution failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Austin Branch acted with malice in the killing of Jacob Simmons, then you must find Austin Branch not guilty of murder.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 118 So. 3d 646 - Branch v. State

3. ““[Tjhe killing of a human being, without malice, in the heat of passion, but in a cruel or unusual manner, or by the use of a dangerous weapon, without authority of law, and not in necessary self-defense .... ” Miss.Code Ann. § 97-3-35 (Rev.1994).... The theory is “that the defendant killed the deceased without malice, under the bona fide belief, but without reasonable cause therefor, that it was necessary for him to do so in oi’der to prevent [the attacker] from inflicting death or great bodily harm upon him”....”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 118 So. 3d 646 - Branch v. State