Miller v. State’s Empirical Analysis
1976
Citation profile
1 federal appellate · 17 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 22 later decisions (2 by the Supreme Court) — most recently September 1995
1 federal appellate · 17 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 State Ex Rel. Butler v. Cullen · Messer v. State · 293 So. 2d 345 - State Ex Rel. Manucy v. Wadsworth · 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 22 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“Pursuant to Florida Statute 921.141, the Court finds the following aggravating circumstances exist: Florida Statute 921.141, subparagraph 5, subparagraph (b). The defendant was previously convicted of a felony involving the threat of violence to another person. Subparagraph (d), the murder was completed while the defendant was engaged in the commission or attempt to commit robbery. And as such, the murder was committed for pecuniary gain. Although aggravating factors (d) and (f) are separate factors by law, the Court holds in this case that the facts support ____. No, the Court holds in this case the facts support that the facts giving rise to both factors come from the same factual occasion, and as such only one factor is found to exist, to wit: subparagraph (d). Subparagraph (h), the murder was especially heinous, atrocious and cruel. The Court finds no other aggravating factors to have been proven beyond and to the exclusion of every reasonable doubt. The Court finds the following mitigating circumstances exist: Florida Statute 921.141, subparagraph 6, subparagraph (b). The murder was committed while the defendant was under the influence of extreme mental disturbance. Subparagraph (e), the defendant acted under extreme mental duress. Subparagraph (f), due to mental sickness the defendant's capacity or ability to conform his conduct to the requirements of law was substantially impaired. The Court finds no other mitigating factors to have been established by the evidence. Th”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Miller 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.