Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 2007 SD 15 - State v. Buchhold

State v. Buchhold’s Empirical Analysis

2007

Citation profile

46
cited by 46 later decisions
7
states following
February 2023
most recently cited

46 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 46 later decisions — most recently February 2023 · most notably State v. Hairston (2008), State v. Bowker (2008)

46 state decisions

320200720102020decided

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 Harmelin v. Michigan · Lockyer Attorney General of California v. Andrade · Weems v. United States · Ewing v. California · Consolidation Coal Co. v. South-East Coal Co.

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

  1. “[W]e first determine whether the sentence appears grossly disproportionate. To accomplish this, we consider the conduct involved, and any relevant past conduct, with utmost deference to the Legislature and the sentencing court. If these circumstances fail to suggest gross disproportionality, our review ends. If, on the other hand, the sentence appears grossly disproportionate, we may, in addition to examining the other Solem factors, conduct an intra- and inter-jurisdictional analysis to aid our comparison or remand to the circuit court to conduct such comparison before resentencing. We may also consider other relevant factors, such as the effect upon society of this type of offense.”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage
  2. “To establish plain error, an appellant must show '(1) error, (2) that is plain, (3) affecting substantial rights; and only then may this Court exercise its discretion to notice the error if, (4) it seriously affects the fairness, integrity, or public reputation of judicial proceedings.'”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  3. “concluded that the gross disproportionality review applies to the sentence imposed for the individual crimes rather than the consecutive aggregate”
    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.