State v. Toscano’s Empirical Analysis
1977
Citation profile
3 federal appellate · 52 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 55 later decisions — most recently June 2017 · most notably Feldman v. Lederle Laboratories (1984), State v. Ragland (1986)
3 federal appellate · 52 state decisions
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 Chambers v. Florida · Ruckelshaus v. Sierra Club · Morrison v. People of State of California · Schipper v. Levitt & Sons, Inc. · Kansas City Star Co. v. United States
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 55 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[s]ubject to subsection b. of this section”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the concurrence“[u]nder some circumstances, the commission of a minor criminal offense should be excusable even if the coercive agent does not use or threaten force which is likely to result in death or "serious" bodily injury. Similarly, it is possible that authorities might not be able to prevent a threat of future harm from eventually being carried out. . . . Warnings of future injury or death will be all the more powerful if the prospective victim is another person, such as a spouse or child, whose safety means more to the threatened person than his own well-being. Finally, as the drafters of the Model Penal Code observed, "long and wasting pressure may break down resistance more effectively than a threat of immediate destruction." [ Ibid. (citations omitted).]”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the concurrencee.g. State v. B.H. · State v. BH“[t]he defense provided by this section is unavailable if the actor recklessly placed himself in a situation in which it was probable that he would be subjected to duress.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the concurrencee.g. State v. B.H. · State v. BH
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.