Payne v. State’s Empirical Analysis
1965
Citation profile
2 federal appellate · 44 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 46 later decisions — most recently July 2021 · most notably State v. Middlebrooks (1992), Kazalyn v. State (1992)
2 federal appellate · 44 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 People v. Washington · State v. Fouquette · Bizup v. People · Kuk v. State · People v. . Marwig
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 46 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“To make a killing deliberate as well as premeditated, it is unnecessary that the intention to kill shall have been entertained for any considerable length of time. It is enough if there is time for the mind to think upon or consider the act, and then determine to do it. If, therefore, the killing is not the instant effect of impulse — if there is hesitation or doubt to be overcome, a choice made as a result of thought, however short the struggle between the intention and the act — it is sufficient to characterize the crime as deliberate and premeditated murder. Id. at 508-509 , 406 P.2d at 925-26 .”
3 later decisions quote this exact passagee.g. Curtis v. State · Byford v. State“purpose [is] to deter felons from killing negligently or accidentally by holding them strictly responsible for the killings that are the result of a felony or an attempted one.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“[T]he unlawful taking of personal property from the person of another, or in his presence, against his will, by means of force or violence or fear of injury, immediate or future, to his person or property, or the person or property of a member of his family, or of anyone in his company at the time of the robbery. Such force or fear must be used to obtain or retain possession of the property, or to prevent or overcome resistance to the taking, in either of which cases the degree of force is immaterial. If used merely as a means of escape, it does not constitute robbery. Such taking constitutes robbery whenever it appears that, although the taking was fully completed without the knowledge of the person from whom taken, such knowledge was prevented by the use of force or fear.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Guy v. State
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.