State v. Phipps’s Empirical Analysis
1994
Citation profile
24 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 25 later decisions — most recently June 2016 · most notably State v. Hall (1997), State v. Hall (1999)
24 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
Applies 18 U.S.C. § 17
Relies on Jackson v. Virginia · In the Matter of Samuel Winship · United Families of America v. Kendrick · Leland v. Oregon · Andrijevic v. Kelleran
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 25 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[t]o find otherwise would deprive a criminal defendant of the right to defend against one of the essential elements of every criminal case. In effect, then, such a finding would deprive the defendant of the means to challenge an aspect of the prosecution’s case and remove the burden of proof on that element in contravention of constitutional and statutory law. While the law presumes sanity it does not presume mens rea. Due process requires that the government prove every element of an offense beyond a reasonable doubt.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the dissente.g. Sanchez v. State · State v. Hall“[t]he Tennessee pattern jury instructions are just that, pattern instructions. They are not sanctioned by the Supreme Court or the legislature. It remains “the responsibility of the trial judge to prepare the jury instructions [and to] revise[] or supplement[] [previously printed forms] if necessary in order to state the applicable law fully and accurately.””
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the dissente.g. State v. Coulter“This entire line of cases ..., though frequently not using the term “diminished capacity,” supports the conclusion that evidence of an accused’s state of mind at the time of the offense is admissible in Tennessee to negate the existence of the requisite element of intent.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the dissente.g. Wilcoxson 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.