Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 853 F.2d 1418 - Davis v. Barber

Davis v. Barber’s Empirical Analysis

853 F.2d 1418 · 1988

Citation profile

10
cited by 10 later decisions
3
states following
October 2003
most recently cited

4 federal appellate · 1 district · 3 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 10 later decisions — most recently October 2003

4 federal appellate · 1 district · 3 state decisions

60198819902000decided

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 In the Matter of Samuel Winship · Mullaney v. Wilbur · Engle v. Isaac · Patterson v. New York · McMillan v. Pennsylvania

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

  1. “Physical inability to perform an affirmative duty is statutorily recognized as a defense which negates criminal responsibility. Since “justification” defenses are not based on the nonexistence of any essential element of the offense, but rather on circumstances which make the accused’s conduct excusable on policy grounds, such defenses should be treated as affirmative defenses which the accused must establish by a preponderance of evidence. ... Nevertheless, there is a logical distinction between those defenses which actually defeat an essential element of the offense and those defenses which present exculpatory circumstances that defeat culpability despite the state’s proof beyond a reasonable doubt of all the essential elements.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “To place upon the state the burden of proving that the defendant is able to pay is unreasonable. Much of the information which the state would need to prove such ability to pay is either protected by privacy laws or protected by his Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination. The appellant him self has knowledge of where and when he worked, how much he earned, the extent of his property, and what other expenses he had. He can fairly be required to adduce such evidence to support an affirmative defense of lack of ability to pay.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority

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.