112 Ill. 2d 78 - People v. Davis’s Empirical Analysis
1986
Citation profile
2 federal appellate · 27 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 29 later decisions — most recently July 2013 · most notably 127 Ill. 2d 12 - People v. Jimerson (1989), 187 Ill. 2d 418 - People v. West (1999)
2 federal appellate · 27 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
Relies on North Carolina v. Pearce · Burks v. United States · Tibbs v. Florida · Enmund v. Florida · Oregon v. Kennedy
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 29 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““Although principles of double jeopardy generally do not apply to sentencing determinations (North Carolina v. Pearce (1969), 395 U.S. 711 , 23 L. Ed. 2d 656 , 89 S. Ct. 2072 ), the defendant correctly observes that they may be applicable in a capital sentencing hearing (Arizona v. Rumsey (1984), 467 U.S. 203 , 81 L. Ed. 2d 164 , 104 S. Ct. 2305 ; Bullington v. Missouri (1981), 451 U.S. 430 , 68 L. Ed. 2d 270 , 101 S. Ct. 1852 ). We note that the capital sentencing procedures of this State share many of the characteristics that the Supreme Court has found significant in applying principles of double jeopardy to those sentencing determinations. (See Arizona v. Rumsey (1984), 467 U.S. 203, 209-11 , 81 L. Ed. 2d 164, 170-71 , 104 S. Ct. 2305, 2310 ; Bullington v. Missouri (1981), 451 U.S. 430, 438 , 68 L. Ed. 2d 270, 278-79 , 101 S. Ct. 1852, 1858 .) For example, in the sentencing proceeding here, the State was required to prove, as a prerequisite for a sentence of death, the existence of a statutory aggravating circumstance beyond a reasonable doubt. (See Ill. Rev. Stat. 1979, ch. 38, par. 9—1(f).) Moreover, the usual rules of evidence governed that determination, and the discretion of the sentencing authority — in this case, a jury — was carefully guided. (See Ill. Rev. Stat. 1979, ch. 38, pars. 9—1(e), (g).) The sentencing proceeding was essentially ‘a trial on the issue of punishment’ (Bullington v. Missouri (1981), 451 U.S. 430, 438 , 68 L. Ed. 2d 270, 279 , 101 S. Ct. 1852”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
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.