Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 151 SW3D 450 - Howell v. State

Howell v. State’s Empirical Analysis

2004

Citation profile

28
cited by 28 later decisions
1
cited 1 times by the Supreme Court
7
states following
June 2019
most recently cited

6 federal appellate · 19 state decisions

Relationships

Relies on Apprendi v. New Jersey · Mathews v. Eldridge · Blakely v. Washington · In the Matter of Samuel Winship · Ring v. Arizona

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

  1. “[W]ere we to apply the statute's 'clear and convincing' standard in light of the newly declared constitutional right against the execution of the mentally retarded, the statute would be unconstitutional. ... [Because] the risk to the petitioner of an erroneous outcome is dire, as he would face the death penalty, while the risk to the State is comparatively modest. ... The balance, under these circumstances, weighs in favor of the petitioner and justifies applying a preponderance of evidence standard at the hearing.”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. ““Mental retardation” means substantial limitations in functioning: (A) As shown by significantly sub-average intellectual functioning that exists concurrently with related limitations in two (2) or more of the following adaptive skill areas: communication, self-care, home living, social skills, community use, self-direction, health and safety, functional academics, leisure, and work; and (B) That are manifested before eighteen (18) years of age.”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “As in Burford, Williams, and Seals , the petitioner in this case has been confronted with circumstances beyond his control which prevented him from previously challenging his conviction and sentence on constitutional grounds. For these reasons, we find the petitioner's individual interests to outweigh those of the state under the specific facts of this capital case.”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority

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.