233 Md. App. 702 - McCullough v. State’s Empirical Analysis
2017
Citation profile
11 state decisions
Relationships
Applies 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996)
Relies on Gregg v. Georgia · Solem v. Helm · Harmelin v. Michigan · Atkins v. Virginia · Robinson v. State of 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 11 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“meaningful opportunity to obtain release”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“(a) Age at the time the crime was committed; (b) The individual's level of maturity and sense of responsibility at the time of [ sic ] the crime was committed; (c) Whether influence or pressure from other individuals contributed to the commission of the crime; (d) Whether the prisoner's character developed since the time of the crime in a manner that indicates the prisoner will comply with the conditions of release; (e) The home environment and family relationships at the time the crime was committed; (f) The individual's educational background and achievement at the time the crime was committed; and (g) Other factors or circumstances unique to prisoners who committed crimes at the time the individual was a juvenile that the Commissioner determines to be relevant.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“It would scarcely be competent for a person to assail the constitutionality of the statute prescribing a punishment for burglary on the ground that he had committed so many burglaries that, if punishment for each were inflicted on him, he might be kept in prison for life. The mere fact that cumulative punishments may be imposed for distinct offenses in the same prosecution is not material upon this question. If the penalty were unreasonably severe for a single offense, the constitutional question might be urged; but here the unreasonableness is only in the number of offenses which the respondent has committed.”
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.