Spivey v. State’s Empirical Analysis
1978
Citation profile
18 federal appellate · 61 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 89 later decisions — most recently March 2000 · most notably State v. Rook (1981), Moses v. State (1980)
18 federal appellate · 61 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 Cupp v. Naughten · Jurek v. Texas · Boyd v. United States · Hawes v. State · Fleming 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 89 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““[T]he ultimate test is whether a reasonable juror, considering the charge as a whole, would know that he should consider all the facts and circumstances of the case as presented during both phases of the trial (which necessarily include any mitigating and aggravating facts), and then, even though he might find one or more of the statutory aggravating circumstances to exist, would know that he might recommend life imprisonment.” Spivey v. State, 241 Ga. 477, 481 , 246 S.E.2d 288 (1978).”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“The reason behind that ruling was that Georgia law nowhere defines mitigating circumstances. `Mitigating circumstances' are referred to in Code Ann. § 27-2534.1 (b) and § 27-2503, but the statutes are wholly silent on what they shall be... The conclusion is inescapable that the legislature meant to empower the jury to consider as mitigating anything they found to be mitigating, without limitation or definition. This is a constitutionally valid procedure.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Redd v. State“the conclusion is inescapable that the legislature meant to empower the jury to consider as mitigating anything they [sic] found to be mitigating, without limitation or definition”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Westbrook v. Zant
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.