Stebbing v. State’s Empirical Analysis
1984
Citation profile
128 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 132 later decisions (2 by the Supreme Court) — most recently June 2022 · most notably Johnson v. State (1985), Hunt v. State (1990)
128 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 Jackson v. Virginia · Gregg v. Georgia · Eddings v. Oklahoma · Enmund v. Florida · Jurek v. Texas
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 132 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[T]here must be an intent to steal at the time of the taking. If the force precedes the taking, the intent to steal need not coincide with the force. It is sufficient if there be force followed by a taking with intent to steal as part of the same general occurrence or episode. Even if the force results in death, a taking and asportation after death is nevertheless robbery.”
6 later decisions quote this exact passage“[u]nder the legislative scheme, `the commission of certain felonies, underlying a felony murder conviction, is to be considered an aggravating circumstance in the capital sentencing proceeding.'”
4 later decisions quote this exact passagee.g. Oken v. State · Metheny v. State“‘[T]he admissibility of expert testimony is a matter largely within the discretion of the trial court, and its action in admitting or excluding such testimony will seldom constitute a ground for reversal. It is well settled, however, that the trial court’s determination is reviewable on ap peal, and may be reversed if founded on an error of law or some serious mistake, or if the trial court has clearly abused its discretion.’ ... A trial judge has discretion to determine whether proffered opinion evidence of questionable relevance will be sufficiently helpful to the jury to justify an excursion into the subject through direct, cross and redirect.”
3 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.