Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 310 Md. 33 - Mills v. State

Mills v. State’s Empirical Analysis

1987

Citation profile

76
cited by 76 later decisions
4
cited 4 times by the Supreme Court
2
states following
June 2021
most recently cited

5 federal appellate · 2 district · 63 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 76 later decisions (4 by the Supreme Court) — most recently June 2021 · most notably Mills v. Maryland (1988), Merzbacher v. State (1997)

5 federal appellate · 2 district · 63 state decisions

37019871990200020102020decided

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 Gregg v. Georgia · Witherspoon v. Illinois · Furman v. Georgia · Woodson v. North Carolina · Zant v. Stephens

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 76 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. “there [was] no ambiguity in the language of [the instruction] concerning unanimity”
    6 later decisions quote this exact passage
  2. ““We have consistently held that whether or not a photograph is of practical value in a case and admissible at trial is a matter best left to the sound discretion of the trial judge. A court’s determination in this area will not be disturbed unless plainly arbitrary.... On certain occasions, photographs have also been admitted to allow the jury to visualize the atrociousness of the crime — a circumstance of much import where the factfinder must determine the degree of murder.””
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage
  3. ““Based upon the evidence we unanimously find that each of the following mitigating circumstances which is marked ‘yes’ has been proven to exist by A PREPONDERANCE OF THE EVIDENCE and each mitigating circumstance marked ‘no’ has not been proven by A PREPONDERANCE OF THE EVIDENCE.” Appendix to opinion of Court, ante, at 387.”
    2 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.