State v. Willis’s Empirical Analysis
1993
Citation profile
56 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 56 later decisions — most recently October 2012 · most notably State v. Holmes (2004), State v. Carter (2007)
56 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 Ohio v. Roberts · Lockett v. Ohio · Pointer v. Texas · Maynard v. Cartwright · Walton v. Arizona
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 56 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“"The defendant committed the crime in an especially heinous, atrocious, or cruel manner. The term `heinous' means extremely wicked or shockingly evil; `atrocious' means outrageously wicked and vile; `cruel' means pitiless or designed to inflict a high degree of pain, utter indifference to, or enjoyment of, the sufferings of others. "A crime is committed in an especially heinous, atrocious, or cruel manner when the perpetrator inflicts serious mental anguish or serious physical abuse before the victim's death. Mental anguish includes a victim's uncertainty as to [his] or [her] ultimate fate." Willis, 254 Kan. 119 , Syl. ¶ 4.”
5 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““We question the relevancy of Exhibit 11 based on the current record. Exhibit 11 is a photograph of the body after it had been moved. It shows a decomposed and decaying corpse displayed on a white sheet. Exhibit 11 does not depict the body as it was found. The ravages of time and the elements have reduced the body to its exhibited state. Upon retrial, relevancy as well as any other appropriate admissibility questions will be ruled on by the trial court as it exercises its discretion in determining admissibility. See State v. Minski, 252 Kan. 806, 817 , 805 P.2d 809 (1993).” 254 Kan. at 132 .”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. State v. Sutton“The hard 40 sentence should be reserved for special cases .... Otherwise, the legislature would have mandated the hard 40 sentence in all first-degree murder cases.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. State v. Spry
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.