State v. Zaragoza’s Empirical Analysis
1983
Citation profile
4 federal appellate · 2 district · 131 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 148 later decisions (6 by the Supreme Court) — most recently August 2024 · most notably Walton v. Arizona (1990), Lewis v. Jeffers (1990)
4 federal appellate · 2 district · 131 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 · Henderson v. Kibbe · Santoni v. United States · Washington v. Confederated Bands & Tribes of the Yakima Indian Nation · Railway Labor Executives' Ass'n v. Ogilvie
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 148 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“sufficiently substantial to call for leniency”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage“a shockingly evil and corrupt state of mind,”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage“[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."”
2 later decisions quote this exact passagee.g. State v. Mata · State v. Lambright
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.