Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 137 Ariz. 278 - State v. Harding

State v. Harding’s Empirical Analysis

1983

Citation profile

134
cited by 134 later decisions
6
cited 6 times by the Supreme Court
12
states following
September 2016
most recently cited

10 federal appellate · 4 district · 112 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 134 later decisions (6 by the Supreme Court) — most recently September 2016 · most notably Walton v. Arizona (1990), Lewis v. Jeffers (1990)

10 federal appellate · 4 district · 112 state decisions — followed in 12 states

5801983199020002010decided

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 Johnson v. Zerbst · Faretta v. California · Edwards v. Arizona · Gregg v. Georgia · Rhode Island v. Innis

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

  1. “A. Defendant committed the offense as consideration for the receipt, or in expectation of the receipt, of anything of pecuniary value. A.R.S. § 13-703 (F)(5). B. Defendant committed the offense in an especially heinous, cruel, or depraved manner. A.R.S. § 13-703 (F)(6). C. Defendant has been convicted of one or more other homicides which were committed during the commission of the offense. A.R.S. § 13-703 (F)(8).”
    3 later decisions quote this exact passage
  2. “We have described the formula of 'sufficiently substantial to call for leniency' as involving the weighing of aggravating against mitigating circumstances on the basis of the gravity of each circumstance.”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage
  3. “The fundamental question then is not one of the wisdom of defendant’s judgment but whether the defendant’s waiver of counsel was made in an intelligent, understanding and competent manner. The answer to this question must depend upon the particular facts and circumstances surrounding each case, including the background, experience and conduct of the accused. All factors relating to the determination of whether the defendant knew exactly what he was doing when he waived his right to counsel are relevant.”
    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.