State v. White’s Empirical Analysis
1958
Citation profile
9 federal appellate · 1 district · 82 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 98 later decisions (6 by the Supreme Court) — most recently December 2019 · most notably Griffin v. California (1965), California v. Ramos (1983)
9 federal appellate · 1 district · 82 state decisions — followed in 17 states
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 Durham v. United States · 47 Cal. 2d 566 - People v. Riser · Laba v. Newark Board of Education · Payne v. Arkansas · State v. Wise
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 98 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“Logically, the jury should be told simply that the subject of parole must not be considered by it. But the efficacy in fact of an instruction to that effect is questionable and since there may reside in the jurors' minds varying understandings * * * the jury may as well be informed of the true basis [for granting] parole. Hence the question should be answered, but followed by a direction to exclude the subject from consideration. [ Id. at 178-79 , 142 A. 2d 65 .]”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“It is no more proper for a jury to conclude that death [would] be a proper penalty because a life sentence may be commuted or the defendant paroled, than it would be for a trial judge in other criminal cases deliberately to impose an excessive sentence to frustrate the statutory scheme committing parole to another agency.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““In the Martin case [State v. Martin, 92 N. J. L. 436], the Court holds that, under the language of the Act of 1916, the jury are not bound to consider the evidence in determining whether to make or refuse a recommendation. The purpose of this is to make it clear that the recommendation is a part of the verdict, and that in determining whether or not the recommendation shall be made, the jury shall consider all the evidence in the case.” (Emphasis supplied)”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. State v. Reynolds
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.