Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 197 Neb. 549 - State v. Simants

State v. Simants’s Empirical Analysis

1977

Citation profile

143
cited by 143 later decisions
2
cited 2 times by the Supreme Court
11
states following
September 2023
most recently cited

14 federal appellate · 18 district · 96 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 143 later decisions (2 by the Supreme Court) — most recently September 2023 · most notably 25 Cal. 3d 142 - People v. Frierson (1979), 42 Cal. 3d 1222 - People v. Allen (1986)

14 federal appellate · 18 district · 96 state decisions — followed in 11 states

420197719801990200020102020decided

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 · Witherspoon v. Illinois · Furman v. Georgia · Woodson v. North Carolina · Jurek v. Texas

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

  1. “It might be argued that every murder involves depravity. The use of the word”
    11 later decisions quote this exact passage
  2. “"Before we consider the procedures further, we turn to defendant's contention that the lack of jury involvement in the sentencing procedure is contrary to the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution as well as Article I, section 3, of the Bill of Rights, of the Constitution of the State of Nebraska. The United States Supreme Court, in Proffitt v. Florida, 428 U.S. 242 , 96 S.Ct. 2960 , 49 L.Ed.2d 913 (1976), has held that jury sentencing in a capital case is not constitutionally required. In that case the Court stated in upholding the Florida procedure: `The basic difference between the Florida system and the Georgia system is that in Florida the sentence is determined by the trial judge rather than by the jury. This (the United States Supreme) Court has pointed out that jury sentencing in a capital case can perform an important societal function, Witherspoon v. Illinois, 391 U.S. 510 , 519 n. 15, 88 S.Ct. 1770, 1775 , 20 L.Ed.2d 776 , but it has never suggested that jury sentencing is constitutionally required. And it would appear that judicial sentencing should lead, if anything, to even greater consistency in the imposition at the trial court level of capital punishment, since a trial judge is more experienced in sentencing than a jury, and therefore is better able to impose sentences similar to those imposed in analogous cases.' "Inferentially, Nebraska has met this contention in the application of its habitual criminal law. We hav”
    4 later decisions quote this exact passage
  3. “(a) The offender was previously convicted of another murder or a crime involving the use or threat of violence to the person, or has a substantial history of serious assaultive or terrorizing criminal activity;”
    4 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.