Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 212 S.C. 348 - State v. Kimbrough

State v. Kimbrough’s Empirical Analysis

1948

Citation profile

49
cited by 49 later decisions
11
states following
March 2002
most recently cited

4 federal appellate · 44 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 49 later decisions — most recently March 2002 · most notably 8 Cal. 3d 410 - In Re Lynch (1972), Roberts v. Warden of Maryland Penitentiary (1955)

4 federal appellate · 44 state decisions — followed in 11 states

1701948195019601970198019902000decided

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 Weems v. United States · John McNamara v. William Henkel · State v. Gregory · State v. Epes · State v. Davis

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

  1. “Everyone concedes that burglary is one of the worst of crimes and the offender should be severely punished, but still it, like every other crime, has its grades of aggravation and enormity. In the instant case, it is conceded that the sentence was based entirely upon the facts heretofore reviewed which show no particular circumstances of aggravation. It is reasonable to infer from this testimony that appellant did not have in his possession any burglar tools or a weapon of any kind. It was stated in oral argument that the report made to the officers by the Federal Bureau of Investigation did not disclose that appellant had any past criminal record. From the evidence the jury evidently concluded that appellant should not receive the maximum punishment of life imprisonment, but the sentence imposed is to all intents and purposes the equivalent of a life sentence, which is the highest punishment permitted for the most aggravated form of the crime. There is nothing here which would justify the Court in disregarding the recommendation made by the jury. No one doubts that the able trial judge conscientiously endeavored to fix a sentence which he thought was fair and just, but under all the circumstances we are constrained to hold that the sentence imposed is manifestly too severe. It is perhaps unnecessary to add that only under rare and unusual circumstances will this Court interfere with the discretion of the trial judge in the imposition of a sentence. The difficult duty and the”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  2. “* * * Under this statute, the recommendation of the jury is an important part of the verdict. The jury is required to not only determine the guilt of the accused but under this statute is permitted to some extent to pass upon the turpitude of the crime. To have a jury bring in a verdict recommending mercy on the strength of a charge that it may do so and thereby reduce the punishment from life to a term of years and then have the judge to disregard that verdict, would certainly appear illogical. It would tend to shake and weaken the confidence of the juries in the courts.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  3. “"Pardon, parole or commutation is an act of grace and a matter of discretion, and may be refused. A just sentence is imperative and must not be denied." State v. Kimbrough, 212 S.C. 348 , 46 S.E.2d 273 , at page 277.”
    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.