State v. Victor’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

2 federal appellate · 3 district · 34 state decisions

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

1. “The balancing of aggravating circumstances against mitigating circumstances is not merely a matter of number counting but, rather, requires a careful weighing and examination of the various factors. State v. Ryan, 233 Neb. 74 , 444 N.W.2d 610 (1989); State v. Joubert, 224 Neb. 411 , 399 N.W.2d 237 (1986). As we observed in State v. Stewart, 197 Neb. 497, 518 , 250 N.W.2d 849, 862 (1977), quoting State v. Dixon, 283 So. 2d 1 (Fla. 1973): “ ‘It must be emphasized that the procedure to be followed by the trial judges and juries is not a mere counting process of X number of aggravating circumstances and Y number of mitigating circumstances, but rather a reasoned judgment as to what factual situations require the imposition of death and which can be satisfied by life imprisonment in light of the totality of the circumstances present. Review by this Court guarantees that the reasons present in one case will reach a similar result to that reached under similar circumstances in another case. No longer will one man die and another live on the basis of race, or a woman live and a man die on the basis of sex. If a defendant is sentenced to die, this Court can review that case in light of the other decisions and determine whether or not the punishment is too great. Thus, the discretion charged in Furman v. Georgia, [ 408 U.S. 238 , 92 S. Ct. 2726 , 33 L. Ed. 2d 346 (1972)], can be controlled and channeled until the sentencing process becomes a matter of reasoned judgment rather than an e”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. State v. Otey · State v. Reeves

2. “[T]his court has adopted a limiting construction on aggravating circumstance (l)(d), as shown in cases extending from 1977 to 1986. We have held that “especially heinous, atrocious, or cruel” is limited to cases where “torture, sadism, or the imposition of extreme suffering exists,” State v. Moore, supra at 470 , 316 N.W.2d at 41 , or where the murder was preceded by acts “performed for the satisfaction of inflicting either mental or physical pain or that pain existed for any prolonged period of time,” State v. Hunt, [ 220 Neb. 707, 725 , 371 N.W.2d 708, 721 (1985)].”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. State v. Otey

3. “Police officers are not required to administer Miranda warnings to everyone whom they question, or simply because the questioning takes place in a police station, or because.the questioned person is one whom the police suspect. [Citation omitted.] Rather, Miranda warnings are required only where there has been such a restriction on one’s freedom as to render one “in custody.” [Citation omitted.] One is in custody for Miranda purposes when there is a formal arrest or a restraint on one’s freedom of movement of the degree associated with such an arrest.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. State v. Cody