Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 233 Ga. 117 - Gregg v. State

Gregg v. State’s Empirical Analysis

1974

Citation profile

144
cited by 144 later decisions
6
cited 6 times by the Supreme Court
8
states following
July 2020
most recently cited

3 federal appellate · 133 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 144 later decisions (6 by the Supreme Court) — most recently July 2020 · most notably Gregg v. Georgia (1976), Pulley v. Harris (1984)

3 federal appellate · 133 state decisions

680197419801990200020102020decided

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 Chambers v. Maroney · United States v. Harris · Coley v. State · Whitlock v. State · House v. State

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

  1. “excessive or disproportionate to the penalty imposed in similar cases, considering both the crime and the defendant.”
    3 later decisions quote this exact passage
  2. “One That the offense of murder was committed while the offender was engaged in the commission of two other capital felonies, to-wit the armed robbery of (Simmons and Moore). 31 "Two That the offender committed the offense of murder for the purpose of receiving money and the automobile described in the indictment. 32 "Three The offense of murder was outrageously and wantonly vile, horrible and inhuman, in that they (Sic ) involved the depravity of (the) mind of the defendant.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  3. “Although there is no indication that these two sentences were imposed under the influence of passing, prejudice or any other arbitrary factor, the sentences imposed here are unusual in that they are rarely imposed for this offense. Thus, under the test provided by statute for comparison (Code Ann. § 27-2537(c), (3)), they must be considered to be excessive or disproportionate to the penalties imposed in similar cases.”
    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.