Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 989 S.W.2d 730 - State v. Bult

State v. Bult’s Empirical Analysis

1998

Citation profile

2
cited by 2 later decisions
1
states following
April 2007
most recently cited

2 state decisions

Relationships

Relies on State v. Shropshire

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

  1. “where the person or a third person is threatened with harm which is present, imminent, impending and of such a na ture to induce a well-grounded apprehension of death or serious bodily injury if the [criminal] act [being prosecuted] is not done. The threatened harm must be continuous throughout the time the [criminal] act is being committed, and must be one from which the person cannot withdraw in safety. Further, the desirability and urgency of avoiding the harm must clearly outweigh, according to ordinary standards of reasonableness, the harm sought to be prevented by the law proscribing the [criminal] conduct.”
    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.