Travis v. State’s Empirical Analysis
1997
Citation profile
49 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 49 later decisions — most recently February 2024 · most notably Brown v. State (2008), Thomas v. State (2002)
49 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 Walker v. State · Titan Oil & Gas, Inc. v. Shipley · Andrews v. State · Webb v. State · Lee v. State
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 49 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“Since the enactment of the criminal code, we have said that sentencing is controlled by statute. See Cody v. State, 326 Ark. 85 , 929 S.W.2d 159 (1996); Easley v. State, 274 Ark. 215 , 623 S.W.2d 189 (1981). Ark. Code Ann. § 16-97-103 (1) was enacted as part of Act 535 of 1993, where the General Assembly made changes in procedures governing jury trials by providing for separate consideration of guilt and sentencing. Among other things, Act 535 defines what is “evidence relevant to sentencing,” part of which includes parole eligibility. Simply put, Travis fails to cite to any express rule of this court with which Ark. Code Ann. § 16-97-103 (1) conflicts. Our holdings to which Travis cites were handed down prior to the enactment of Act 535 of 1993. Because of the deference this court has given to the General Assembly in matters pertaining to sentencing, see Cody, supra, and because Travis fails to cite an express rule of this court which conflicts with Ark. Code Ann. § 16-97-103 (1), we affirm as to this point.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Spann v. State“(1) the diligence of the movant; (2) the probable effect of the testimony at trial; (3) the likelihood of procuring the attendance of the witness in the event of a postponement; and (4) the filing of an affidavit, stating not only what facts the witness would prove, but also that the appellant believes them to be true. To demonstrate error on appeal, an appellant must show that he or she was prejudiced by the trial court’s denial of the continuance.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Cherry v. State
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.