Already have an account? Sign in instead.
You stay signed in for 30 days on this browser.
Continue with Google Continue with MicrosoftNo account yet? Create a free one.
We sent a six-digit code.
It expires in ten minutes, works once, and only in this browser. Five wrong tries void it. Send another code.
Your account is live and the Cloudflare checks are off for this browser.
6 Minnesota opinions name it 2 courts 1982–2024 1 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Minnesota courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
Laurence Maria Smith, s/k/a Laurence Marie Smith v. Commonwealth of Virginiagreen1 sentence2024Ct. App. 2020) (“Mere words, no matter how provocative, are insufficient to reduce an intentional and unjustifiable homicide from murder to manslaughter.” (citation omitted) (internal quotation marks omitted)); Smith v. Commonwealth, 808 S.E.2d 848, 854 (Va. Ct. App. 2018), aff’d, 821 S.E.2d 543 (Va. 2018) (“The Commonwealth also continues to follow the common law principle that words alone are not sufficient to engender a reasonable provocation that incites passion and negates the presence of malice.”); Massey v. State, 955 N.E.2d 247, 257 (Ind. Ct. App. 2011) (“Words alone, however, do not c | 1 | 1 |
State v. Staffordgreen1 sentence2024See, e.g., State v. Stafford, 477 P.3d 1027, 1034 (Kan. 2020) (“Mere words or gestures, however offensive, do not constitute legally sufficient provocation for a finding of voluntary manslaughter.” (citation omitted) (internal quotation marks omitted)); State v. Runningeagle, 859 P.2d 169, 178 (Ariz. 1993) (“Words alone are not adequate provocation to justify a manslaughter instruction.”); Baker v. State, 304 So. 3d 707 , 712 (Miss. | 1 | 1 |
State v. Runningeaglegreen1 sentence2024See, e.g., State v. Stafford, 477 P.3d 1027, 1034 (Kan. 2020) (“Mere words or gestures, however offensive, do not constitute legally sufficient provocation for a finding of voluntary manslaughter.” (citation omitted) (internal quotation marks omitted)); State v. Runningeagle, 859 P.2d 169, 178 (Ariz. 1993) (“Words alone are not adequate provocation to justify a manslaughter instruction.”); Baker v. State, 304 So. 3d 707 , 712 (Miss. | 1 | 1 |
Smith v. Commonwealthgreen1 sentence2024Ct. App. 2020) (“Mere words, no matter how provocative, are insufficient to reduce an intentional and unjustifiable homicide from murder to manslaughter.” (citation omitted) (internal quotation marks omitted)); Smith v. Commonwealth, 808 S.E.2d 848, 854 (Va. Ct. App. 2018), aff’d, 821 S.E.2d 543 (Va. 2018) (“The Commonwealth also continues to follow the common law principle that words alone are not sufficient to engender a reasonable provocation that incites passion and negates the presence of malice.”); Massey v. State, 955 N.E.2d 247, 257 (Ind. Ct. App. 2011) (“Words alone, however, do not c | 1 | 1 |
Massey v. Stategreen1 sentence2024Ct. App. 2020) (“Mere words, no matter how provocative, are insufficient to reduce an intentional and unjustifiable homicide from murder to manslaughter.” (citation omitted) (internal quotation marks omitted)); Smith v. Commonwealth, 808 S.E.2d 848, 854 (Va. Ct. App. 2018), aff’d, 821 S.E.2d 543 (Va. 2018) (“The Commonwealth also continues to follow the common law principle that words alone are not sufficient to engender a reasonable provocation that incites passion and negates the presence of malice.”); Massey v. State, 955 N.E.2d 247, 257 (Ind. Ct. App. 2011) (“Words alone, however, do not c | 1 | 1 |
State v. Volkgreen1 sentence2009State v. Volk, 421 N.W.2d 360, 365 (Minn.App.1988) (explaining that there was no evidence to support an instruction for heat of passion manslaughter and affirming the district court’s conclusion that there was no basis to give a manslaughter instruction), review denied, (Minn. May 18, 1988). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Tupagreen2 sentences1988As the majority indicates, the court’s view on waiver of the statute is in conflict with the rationale and holding in State v. Johnson, 422 N.W.2d 14 (Minn.Ct.App.1988); see also State v. Tupa, 194 Minn. 488 , 260 N.W. 875 (1935) (by discussing whether defendant waived statute of limitations, the court implied it was a waivable defense). 5 Therefore, we are called upon to independently determine whether a manslaughter instruction was mandated. 1988As the majority indicates, the court’s view on waiver of the statute is in conflict with the rationale and holding in State v. Johnson, 422 N.W.2d 14 (Minn.Ct.App.1988); see also State v. Tupa, 194 Minn. 488 , 260 N.W. 875 (1935) (by discussing whether defendant waived statute of limitations, the court implied it was a waivable defense). 5 Therefore, we are called upon to independently determine whether a manslaughter instruction was mandated. | 1 | 1 |
State v. Leinwebergreen2 sentences1988State v. Leinweber, 303 Minn. 414, 422 , 228 N.W.2d 120, 125-26 (1975). 1988State v. Leinweber, 303 Minn. 414, 422 , 228 N.W.2d 120, 125-26 (1975). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Swaingreen1 sentence1985Nurmi, 336 N.W.2d at 67 ; State v. Lee, 282 N.W.2d 896, 899-900 (Minn.1979); State v. Swain, 269 N.W.2d 707, 715 (Minn.1978). 6. | 1 | 1 |
State v. Leegreen1 sentence1985Nurmi, 336 N.W.2d at 67 ; State v. Lee, 282 N.W.2d 896, 899-900 (Minn.1979); State v. Swain, 269 N.W.2d 707, 715 (Minn.1978). 6. | 1 | 1 |
State v. Wahlberggreen2 sentences1982See State v. Wahlberg, 296 N.W.2d 408, 417-18 (Minn. 1980). 7. 1982See State v. Wahlberg, 296 N.W.2d 408, 417-18 (Minn.1980). 7. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Minnesota. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
State v. Johnson
green
2 sentences1988As the majority indicates, the court’s view on waiver of the statute is in conflict with the rationale and holding in State v. Johnson, 422 N.W.2d 14 (Minn.Ct.App.1988); see also State v. Tupa, 194 Minn. 488 , 260 N.W. 875 (1935) (by discussing whether defendant waived statute of limitations, the court implied it was a waivable defense). 5 Therefore, we are called upon to independently determine whether a manslaughter instruction was mandated. 1988As the majority indicates, the court's view on waiver of the statute is in conflict with the rationale and holding in State v. Johnson, 422 N.W.2d 14 (Minn.Ct.App.1988); see also State v. Tupa, 194 Minn. 488 , 260 N.W. 875 (1935) (by discussing whether defendant waived statute of limitations, the court implied it was a waivable defense). [5] Therefore, we are called upon to independently determine whether a manslaughter instruction was mandated. | 1 | 1988–1988 |
State v. Nurmi
green
1 sentence1985Nurmi, 336 N.W.2d at 67 ; State v. Lee, 282 N.W.2d 896, 899-900 (Minn.1979); State v. Swain, 269 N.W.2d 707, 715 (Minn.1978). 6. | 1 | 1985–1985 |
State v. Hoffman
green
1 sentence1985Id. at 718 . | 1 | 1985–1985 |
Counted by distinct opinions that both name this issue and are annotated to the section; sections every opinion cites regardless of issue are not filtered here, so read the counts against the total above.
Opinions by the citing court's state. A doctrine retained in one state and abandoned in another shows up here as a year span that stalls.