Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 112 Nev. 683 - Domingues v. State

Domingues v. State’s Empirical Analysis

1996

Citation profile

85
cited by 85 later decisions
2
states following
May 2025
most recently cited

2 federal appellate · 4 district · 74 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 85 later decisions — most recently May 2025 · most notably Jackson v. State (2001), Hernandez v. State (2002)

2 federal appellate · 4 district · 74 state decisions

3401996200020102020decided

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 Chapman v. State of California · Payne v. Tennessee · Petrocelli v. State · Rowland v. Mad River Local School District, Montgomery County, Ohio · McDougall v. North Carolina

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

  1. “A knife is not necessarily a deadly weapon under NRS 193.165.”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage
  2. “The State has alleged that an aggravating circumstance is present in this case. The defendant have [sic] alleged that certain mitigating circumstances are present in this case. It shall be your duty to determine: (a) Whether an aggravating circumstance or circumstances are found to exist; and (b) Whether a mitigating circumstance or circumstances are found to exist; and (c) Based upon these findings, whether a defendant should be sentenced to life imprisonment or death. The law never requires that you impose a sentence of death. The jury may impose a sentence of death only if it finds at least one aggravating circumstance has been established beyond a reasonable doubt and further finds that there are no mitigating circumstances sufficient to outweigh the aggravating circumstances found. Otherwise, the punishment imposed shall be imprisonment in the State Prison for life with or without the possibility of parole. Instruction No. 8: You are instructed that the following factors are circumstances by which Murder of the First Degree may be aggravated: The murder involved, torture, depravity of mind or the mutilation of the victim. The State is alleging depravity of mind in the murder of Kristy Cox. The State is alleging torture or depravity of mind or mutilation in the murder of Wendy Cox.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  3. “[t]orture involves a calculated intent to inflict pain for revenge, extortion, persuasion or for any sadistic purpose.”
    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.