Blazic v. Henderson’s Empirical Analysis
900 F.2d 534 · 1990
Citation profile
4 federal appellate ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 48 later decisions — most recently May 2016 · most notably Blissett v. Lefevre (1991), Ronald Davis v. Wayne Strack, Superintendent, Fishkill Correctional Facility and Dennis C. Vacco, New York State Attorney General (2001)
4 federal appellate ·
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 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996)
Relies on In the Matter of Samuel Winship · Engle v. Isaac · Cupp v. Naughten · Henderson v. Kibbe · Cruz v. Hauck
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 48 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“(a) He reasonably believes that such other person is using or about to use deadly physical force. Even in such case, however, the actor may not use deadly physical force if he knows that he can with complete safety as to himself and others avoid the necessity of so doing by retreating ...; or (b) He reasonably believes that such other person is committing or attempting to commit a kidnapping, forcible rape, forcible sodomy or robbery; or (c) He reasonably believes that such other person is committing or attempting to commit a burglary, and the circumstances are such that the use of deadly physical force is authorized by subdivision three of section 35.20.-”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“Nor do we think a justification charge would have affected the outcome if a jury found that the prosecution proved all the elements of second degree murder and a jury proceeded to a self-defense claim. For a jury to find that the prosecution met its burden, [it] would have had to reject significant aspects of Blazic’s account. Certainly, if a jury rejected the majority of Blazic’s testimony, a justification charge would not have affected the jury’s verdict since [the] testimony was the only evidence supporting a justification claim.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“[I]f the record includes evidence which, viewed in the light most favorable to the defendant and drawing all reasonably permissible inferences in his favor, satisfies the essential elements of the defense of justification, the charge must be given. Where a justification charge is warranted, a court’s refusal to instruct the jury' that the People must disprove the defendant’s claim of justification constitutes reversible error.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage
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.