State v. Davis’s Empirical Analysis
2003
Citation profile
68 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 70 later decisions (2 by the Supreme Court) — most recently April 2024 · most notably State v. Anderson (2005), State v. Berger (2006)
68 state decisions
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 Solem v. Helm · Harmelin v. Michigan · Lockyer Attorney General of California v. Andrade · Rummel v. Estelle · Ewing v. California
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 70 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“compelling reason to interpret Arizona's cruel and unusual punishment provision differently from the related provision in the federal constitution.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“Although this court normally will not consider the imposition of consecutive sentences in a proportionality inquiry, this case cries out for departure from that general rule____ It is in part because judges in Arizona have no discretion regarding the minimum sentence and must impose consecutive sentences that this sentence fails the proportionality test____ Therefore, to ignore the requirement that the sentences be served consecutively would be to ignore one of the causes of the disproportionality. We recognize the legislature’s right to impose a thirteen-year minimum sentence ... and to require that the sentences be served completely. We also recognize the legislature’s right to require consecutive sentences for this type of offense. We cannot, however, uphold a sentence that becomes unconstitutionally disproportionate to the crimes committed because the sentences are mandatorily lengthy, flat, and consecutive.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the concurrencee.g. State v. Berger“Upon an appeal from the judgment or from the sentence on the ground that it is excessive, the court shall have the power to reduce the extent or duration of the punishment imposed, if, in its opinion, the conviction is proper, but the punishment imposed is greater than under the circumstances of the case ought to be inflicted. In such a case, the supreme court shall impose any legal sentence, not more severe than that originally imposed, which in its opinion is proper. Such sentence shall be enforced by the court from which the appeal was taken.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the dissente.g. State v. Berger
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.