State v. Borner’s Empirical Analysis
2013
Citation profile
1 federal appellate · 19 state decisions
Relationships
Applies 18 U.S.C. § 111 (Federal Judiciary Protection Act of 2002) · 18 U.S.C. § 1111 · 18 U.S.C. § 341 (§ 1971 of the Money Laundering Control Act of 1986)
Relies on United States v. Olano · United States v. Young · United States v. Frady · Ball v. United States · United States v. Feola
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 20 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“allowed the jury to convict him of conspiracy to commit murder without having an intent to cause the death of another human being. Swanson argues our prior caselaw defining the elements of conspiracy to commit murder requires the State to prove he entered into a conspiracy intending to cause a death. His argument can be resolved by determining whether our prior caselaw defining the elements of conspiracy to commit murder requires proof of an intent to cause the death of another human being and, if so, whether the definition of”
5 later decisions quote this exact passagee.g. Olson v. State · State v. Whitman“[W]e have no authority cited to us that a co-conspirator is synonymous with an accomplice. The North Dakota Criminal Code is consistent in its separate treatment of co-conspirators and accomplices, as evidenced by Section 12.1-06-04(5) : "Accomplice liability for offenses committed in furtherance of the conspiracy is to be determined as provided in Section 12.1-03-01." The definition of "accomplice" in Section 12.1-03-01(1)(a) and (b), specifies acts different from those set forth in the definition of "criminal conspiracy" in Section 12.1-06-04(1).”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the dissente.g. Olson v. State“[c]auses the death of another human being under circumstances manifesting extreme indifference to the value of human life[.]”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the dissente.g. Olson 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.