State v. Schmidt’s Empirical Analysis
2009
Citation profile
21 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 21 later decisions — most recently July 2022
21 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 Apprendi v. New Jersey · Blakely v. Washington · Almendarez-Torres v. United States · In the Matter of Samuel Winship · Wolff v. McDonnell
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 21 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“When one or more clearly enumerated aggravators are found consistent with Ap-prendi [v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466 , 120 S.Ct. 2348 , 147 L.Ed.2d 435 (2000) ], and they allow imposition of an aggravated sentence under the relevant statutory scheme, the “elements” of the aggravated offense will have been identified with sufficient clarity to satisfy due process. Subsequent reliance on other factors embraced by a catch-all provision to justify a sentence up to the statutory maximum comports with the traditional discretionary role afforded judges in sentencing.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the concurrencee.g. State v. PONSART
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.