State v. Bishop’s Empirical Analysis
1980
Citation profile
6 federal appellate · 2 district · 62 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 72 later decisions (2 by the Supreme Court) — most recently August 2002 · most notably Lewis v. Jeffers (1990), State v. Gretzler (1983)
6 federal appellate · 2 district · 62 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 Lockett v. Ohio · Santoni v. United States · State v. Richmond · State v. Watson · State v. Clark
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 72 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[w]e have explained on numerous occasions that cruelty involves the pain and distress visited upon the victims, and that heinous and depraved go to the mental state and attitude of the perpetrator as reflected in his words and actions.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passagee.g. State v. Mata · State v. Tison“Good-by Norman. I hope we never see you again”
2 later decisions quote this exact passagee.g. State v. Mata · Jeffers v. Ricketts“[T]he statutory concepts of heinous and depraved involve a killer's vile state of mind at the time of the murder, as evidenced by the killer's actions. Our cases have suggested specific factors which lead to a finding of heinousness or depravity. The first such factor is the apparent relishing of the murder by the killer .... Another factor we have found to demonstrate a heinous or depraved state of mind is the infliction of gratuitous violence on the victim.... Closely related to the above two factors, and also demonstrating a heinous or depraved state of mind, is the needless mutilation of the victim.... Other factors considered by this court are the senselessness of the crime, and the helplessness of the victim.... Where no circumstances, such as the specific factors discussed above, separate the crime from the "norm" of first degree murders, we will reverse a finding that the crime was committed in an "especially heinous, cruel or depraved manner."”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. State v. Mata
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.