State v. Guzek’s Empirical Analysis
2004
Citation profile
15
cited by 15 later decisions
3
cited 3 times by the Supreme Court
4
states following
August 2018
most recently cited
2 federal appellate · 8 state decisions
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 15 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“* "determine if such evidence is relevant and, therefore, generally admissible under ORS 163.150(1)(b)(B) (or under the other statutory questions on which the state bears the burden of proof), or whether the evidence qualifies solely as 'any aggravating evidence' not relevant to the first three questions and not rebutting any particular mitigating evidence offered by defendant."”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. State v. Langley“"Any determination of the relevance of the state's aggravating evidence against [the] defendant therefore must be in relation to the first three statutory questions set out in ORS 163.150(1)(b)(A) to (C) or in relation to rebuttal of any particular mitigating evidence offered by defendant."”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. State v. Langley“in no way mandates reconsideration by capital juries, in the sentencing phase, of their `residual doubts' over a defendant's guilt . . . [s]uch lingering doubts are not over any aspect of petitioner's `character,' `record,' or `circumstance of the offense.'”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the dissente.g. Simpson v. Moore
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.