State v. Conley’s Empirical Analysis
2000
Citation profile
149 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 149 later decisions — most recently March 2022 · most notably State v. Gould (2001), State v. Holmes (2004)
149 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
Applies 18 U.S.C. § 2119
Relies on Apprendi v. New Jersey · Batson v. Kentucky · In the Matter of Samuel Winship · Ohio v. Roberts · McMillan v. Pennsylvania
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 149 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“that increases the penalty for a crime beyond the prescribed statutory maximum must be submitted to a jury, and proved beyond a reasonable doubt.”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. State v. Coleman · State v. Trotter““Imposition of the K.S.A. 21-4638 hard 40 sentence based on a fact not found by the jury does not increase a defendant’s maximum sentence of imprisonment for life imposed under K.S.A. 21-4706(c). The hard 40 sentence limits the lower end of die sentence. Defendant’s hard 40 sentence violates neither the Due Process Clause of the United States Constitution nor [the] right to trial by jury under the Sixth Amendment to die United States Constitudon or § 5 of the Kansas Constitution Bill of Rights.””
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. State v. Lessley · State v. Conley““Imposition of the K.S.A. 21-4638 hard 40 sentence based on a fact not found by die jury does not increase a defendant’s maximum sentence of imprisonment for life imposed under K.S.A. 21-4706(c). The hard 40 sentence limits the lower end of the sentence. Defendant’s hard 40 sentence violates neither the Due Process Clause of the United States Constitution, nor his right to trial by jury under the 6th Amendment to the United States Constitution or § 5 of the Kansas Constitution Bill of Rights.””
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. State v. Coleman · State v. Lopez
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.