State v. Taylor’s Empirical Analysis
1981
Citation profile
6 federal appellate · 195 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 209 later decisions (2 by the Supreme Court) — most recently May 2018 · most notably State v. Young (1985), State v. Bondurant (1983)
6 federal appellate · 195 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 Witherspoon v. Illinois · Washington v. Davis · Duren v. Missouri · Pesce v. United States · State v. Barfield
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 209 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“In Oliver I and its progeny, we stated that robbery constitutes an essential element of felony murder. In a capital case tried solely on a felony murder theory[,] a jury, in the absence of this element, could not find defendant guilty of the capital offense. The circumstance that the capital felony was committed for pecuniary gain, however, is not such an essential element. This circumstance examines the motive of the defendant rather than his acts. While his motive does not constitute an element of the offense, it is appropriate for it to be considered on the question of his sentence.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage“the better rule here is to allow both sides to introduce evidence in support of aggravating and mitigating circumstances which have been admitted into evidence by stipulation. If the capital felony of which defendant has previously been convicted was a particularly shocking or heinous crime, the jury should be so informed. Conversely, it could be to defendant's advantage that he be allowed to offer additional evidence in support of possible mitigating circumstances, instead of being bound by the State's stipulation.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passagee.g. State v. Cummings · State v. Jones“"[B]ecause we believe the purpose for considering aggravating and mitigating circumstances is to engage in a character analysis of the defendant to ascertain whether the ultimate penalty is called for in his or her particular case. Propensity to commit violent crimes surely must be a valid consideration for the jury and the judge. It is matter that can contribute to decisions as to sentence which will lead to uniform treatment and help eliminate `total arbitrariness and capriciousness in [the] imposition' of the death penalty. (Citation omitted.)"”
2 later decisions quote this exact passagee.g. State v. Warren · State v. Carter
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.