State v. Martini’s Empirical Analysis
2006
Citation profile
8 state decisions
Relationships
Relies on Ring v. Arizona · Mills v. Maryland · Trident Associates Ltd. Partnership v. Metropolitan Life Insurance Co. · City of Los Angeles v. Department of Transportation · Bank of New York v. Continental Airlines, Inc.
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 8 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“`[v]iewed in isolation, the single remark ... might suggest that the preferred result is a unanimous conclusion concerning the existence or non-existence of a mitigating factor,'... but that `when the isolated remark is viewed in the context of the charge as a whole, it is clear that there was no error.'”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“the instruction properly conveyed to the jury that each juror must individually determine whether a mitigating factor exists,”
1 later decision 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.