ELB wrote:At one point I examined about 30 of those cases, ... What I found was that in the vast majority of cases, the defenders were not charged by the DA with anything. Even rarer was reading about any civil lawsuits (like one of those 30). ...
But. It is my perception that the vast majority of SD shootings do not result in civil lawsuits. My cynical side says that probably the biggest driver of this is that lawyers don't feel that the average citizen defender has enough assets to make it worth most tort lawyers time to fool with it. Also, from what I can see in the news reports, most of the time when the smoke clears the situation is pretty straightforward as to who was the good guy and who was the bad guy. In Texas at least this discourages lawsuits, since the law provides that one cannot be successfully sued for defending oneself. I suspect that jurisdiction also has a role -- civil suits are less likely to be successful in places where self-defense, particularly with a gun, is supported (e.g. Texas) versus hoplophobic jurisdictions like NY or MA.
You could also go to one of the websites that compiles courtcases and search on self-defense or similiar terms.
ELB with much of what you wrote ... condensed above. Your research was likely much more fruitful and informative that searching for any "case law" on LexisNexis or Westlaw. Such "case law" is derived for the most part from cases that were appealed from the trial court and report decisions on those appeals. The trial court level is usually not reported. And not all cases are appealed. Thus your search was good info. 
I think you are correct about the potential recovery from a citizen defender being too little to interest most attorneys who would consider taking such a civil case. And they would certainly have to weigh the public sentiment in that jurisdiction and the relative attractiveness of the injured bad guy and the self-defender.