State v. Goodman’s Empirical Analysis
1979
Citation profile
11 federal appellate · 295 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 321 later decisions — most recently November 2017 · most notably State v. Jenkins (1984), State v. Ahearn (1983)
11 federal appellate · 295 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 Lockett v. Ohio · Harris v. New York · Walder v. United States · Oliphant v. Suquamish Indian Tribe · Wingo v. Wedding
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 321 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“conscienceless or pitiless crime which is unnecessarily torturous to the victim.”
17 later decisions quote this exact passagee.g. State v. Stanley · State v. Pinch“defendant had been previously convicted of a felony involving the use or threat of violence to the person.”
11 later decisions quote this exact passagee.g. Knight v. State · State v. Hamlette“"In submitting the issue under (e) (4), the court reviewed the evidence tending to show that on the night in question while defendant, Lois,' Charles and Collins were on Rural Paved Road 2007 in Cumberland County, that Collins was shot and received some cuts to his body; that defendant and Charles then made statements to the effect that they did not want to be arrested for anything; and that they therefore proposed to take Collins to Robeson County so that he could not tell on them. The court then instructed the jury that if they found those to be the facts beyond a reasonable doubt, and believed that to be an aggravating circumstance, then they should answer the issue 'yes’. "In submitting the issue under (e) (7), the trial court reviewed substantially the same evidence. The court then instructed the jury that if they found those to be the facts beyond a reasonable doubt and believed that to be an aggravating circumstance, then they should answer the issue 'yes’. "We think the submission of the two issues on the same evidence was improper. This amounted to an unnecessary duplication of the circumstances enumerated in the statute, resulting in an automatic cumulation of aggravating circumstances against the defendant.” 298 N.C. at 28-29 .”
4 later decisions 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.