Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 185 Ariz. 319 - State v. Mata

State v. Mata’s Empirical Analysis

1996

Citation profile

58
cited by 58 later decisions
2
cited 2 times by the Supreme Court
2
states following
January 2025
most recently cited

6 federal appellate · 6 district · 41 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 58 later decisions (2 by the Supreme Court) — most recently January 2025 · most notably State v. Anderson (2005), State v. Greene (1998)

6 federal appellate · 6 district · 41 state decisions

2001996200020102020decided

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 Strickland v. Washington · Faretta v. California · Coleman v. Thompson · Gregg v. Georgia · Teague v. Lane

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

  1. “The senselessness of the murders, given the inability of the victims to thwart the escape, especially in such an isolated area, and the fact that a young child, less than two years old, who posed no threat to the captors, was indiscriminately shot while in the arms of his mother, compels the conclusion that the actual slayers possessed a shockingly evil state of mind. Less violent alter-natives which would have served their purposes in preventing their detection by the authorities were obviously available. But they chose to slaughter an entire family and [their niece].”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  2. “Walton therefore squarely forecloses any argument that Arizona's subsection (F)(6) aggravating circumstance, as [previously] construed by the Arizona Supreme Court [in Gretzler ], fails to channel the sentencer's discretion by `clear and objective standards' that provide `specific and detailed guidance,' and that `make rationally reviewable the process for imposing a sentence of death.'”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  3. “The United States Constitution demands that imposition of a death sentence be based upon some principled distinction.”
    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.