Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 136 Ariz. 312 - State v. Richmond

State v. Richmond’s Empirical Analysis

1983

Citation profile

123
cited by 123 later decisions
6
cited 6 times by the Supreme Court
6
states following
December 2018
most recently cited

11 federal appellate · 4 district · 98 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 123 later decisions (6 by the Supreme Court) — most recently December 2018 · most notably Tison v. Arizona (1987), Richmond v. Lewis (1992)

11 federal appellate · 4 district · 98 state decisions

5901983199020002010decided

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 Gregg v. Georgia · Furman v. Georgia · Enmund v. Florida · Santoni v. United States · Washington v. Confederated Bands & Tribes of the Yakima Indian Nation

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

  1. “In death penalty cases, this court will conduct an independent examination of the record to determine for ourselves the presence or absence of aggravating and mitigating circumstances and the weight to give to each. We also independently determine the propriety of the sentence.”
    4 later decisions quote this exact passage
  2. “in an especially heinous, cruel or depraved manner,”
    3 later decisions quote this exact passage
  3. “Jordan III ") (Sec. 13-703 requires the death penalty if no mitigating circumstances exist). 51 122 The State relies on the holdings of its courts that the statute's assignment of the burden of proof does not violate the Constitution. The Arizona Supreme Court reasons that "[o]nce the defendant has been found guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, due process is not offended by requiring the defendant to establish mitigating circumstances.”
    2 later decisions 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.