Atkins v. State’s Empirical Analysis
1972
Citation profile
1 federal appellate · 60 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 61 later decisions — most recently January 2000 · most notably 76 Wis. 2d 286 - In INTEREST OF DH v. State (1977), Walker v. State (1976)
1 federal appellate · 60 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 Gault · Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School District · Kent v. United States · Summers v. State · State Ex Rel. Atkins v. JUVENILE CT. OF MARION CTY.
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 61 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““Indiana Code 1971, 31-5-7-1, being Burns § 9-3201, states the overall purpose of the juvenile justice system as follows: ‘The purpose of this act is to secure for each child within its provisions such care, guidance and control, preferably in his own home, as will serve the child’s welfare and the best interests of the state; and when such child is removed from his own family, to secure for him custody, care and discipline as nearly as possible equivalent to that which should have been given by his parents.’ (Emphasis added.) This statutory context creates a presumption in favor of disposing of juvenile matters within the juvenile system and makes waiver to criminal court jurisdiction a last resort to be used only when the juvenile court after full hearing determines that the range of dispositions available within the juvenile system are not adequate in the particular case to serve ‘the child’s welfare and the best interests of the state.’ Waiver to criminal court is then to be the exception and as such is to be explicitly justified in the waiver order.” 290 N.E.2d 441, 442-443 .”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage““ [Referee Richard V. Bennett] CONDUCTED a full investigation of the matter and now finds: 1. The child is (was) over fifteen (15) years of age and under eighteen (18) years of age to wit: 16 years, at the time of the charged offense. 2. The offense charged would be a crime if committed by an adult, to wit: ASSAULT AND BATTERY WITH INTENT TO KILL. 3. The matter has specific prosecutive merit if waived to a court of adult criminal jurisdiction. 4. That if the matter were to be retained in the juvenile jurisdiction and child adjudged to be delinquent, no disposition available to the Juvenile Court is reasonably calculated to effect rehabilitation in that: The offense charged is of heinous or aggravated nature, The offense charged is part of a repetitive pattern of juvenile offenses, to wit: J70-6389 12-6-70 FIRST DEGREE BURGLARY The best interests of the public welfare and the protection of public security require that said juvenile stand trial as an adult offender.””
1 later decision quote this exact passage“1. The offense has specific prosecutive merit in the opinion of the prosecuting attorney; or 2. It is heinous or of an aggravated character, greater weight being given to offenses against the person than to offenses against property; or 3. The offense is part of a repetitive pattern of juvenile offenses; or 4. It is in the best interests of the public security that said juvenile be required to stand trial as an adult offender.”
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.