Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 204 Ariz. 534 - State v. Ring

State v. Ring’s Empirical Analysis

2003

Citation profile

335
cited by 335 later decisions
15
states following
September 2024
most recently cited

8 federal appellate · 4 district · 314 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 335 later decisions — most recently September 2024 · most notably State v. Henderson (2005), 202 So. 3d 40 - Timothy Lee Hurst v. State of Florida (2016)

8 federal appellate · 4 district · 314 state decisions — followed in 15 states

2220200320102020decided

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 Apprendi v. New Jersey · Almendarez-Torres v. United States · Gregg v. Georgia · Brecht v. Abrahamson · Arizona v. Fulminante

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

  1. “[a] narrow reading of Ring II [ Ring v. Arizona, 536 U.S. 584 , 122 S.Ct. 2428 , 153 L.Ed.2d 556 (2002)] may permit a judge to decide the existence of additional aggravating factors in the circumstances described by the State ... we conclude that Ring II requires a jury to consider all aggravating factors urged by the state and not either exempt from Ring II, implicit in the jury's verdict, or otherwise established beyond a reasonable doubt.”
    7 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the dissent
  2. “), "structural errors `deprive defendants of "basic protections”
    4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the dissent
  3. “affirm a capital sentence only if we conclude, beyond a reasonable doubt, that no rational trier of fact would determine that the mitigating circumstances were sufficiently substantial to call for leniency.”
    3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the dissent

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.