State v. Austin’s Empirical Analysis
1969
Citation profile
2 federal appellate · 2 district · 62 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 66 later decisions — most recently March 2015 · most notably State v. Laguna (1999), State v. Moss (1971)
2 federal appellate · 2 district · 62 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 Morissette v. United States · State v. Hefflin · Barnett v. Cal M, Inc. · State v. Diamond · State v. Shedoudy
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 66 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““Generally speaking, when an act is prohibited and made punishable by statute only, the statute is to be construed in the light of the common law and the existence of a criminal intent is to be regarded as essential, although the terms of the statute do not require it. * * * But the legislature may forbid the doing of an act and make its commission criminal, without regard to the intent with which such act is done; but in such case it must clearly appear from the Act (from its language or clear inference) that such was the legislative intent. * * * * *- * “It follows that whether a criminal intent is to be regarded as essential, is a matter of construction, to be determined from a consideration of the matters prohibited, and the language of the statute, in the light of the common law rule.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passagee.g. State v. Powell · State v. Jordan“What is criminal intent? It is more than “intentional” taking. It is a mental state. This mental state is a conscious wrongdoing. Concerning this conscious wrongdoing, Morissette v. United States, 342 U.S. 246 , [252, 72 S.Ct. 240, 244 , 96 L.Ed. 288 ] (1952) states: “* * * courts of various jurisdictions, and for the purposes of different offenses, have devised working formulae, if not scientific ones, for the instruction of juries around such terms as ‘felonious intent,’ ‘criminal intent/ ‘malice aforethought/ ‘guilty knowledge/ ‘fraudulent intent/ ‘wilfulness/ ‘scienter/ to denote guilty knowledge, * * */’”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. State v. Powell
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.