State v. Quick’s Empirical Analysis
1994
Citation profile
20 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 20 later decisions — most recently May 2011
20 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 Miranda v. State of Arizona Vignera · Doyle v. Ohio · Woodson v. North Carolina · McKoy v. North Carolina · State v. Artis
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 20 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“evidence of mental impairment. However, notwithstanding the question of sufficiency of the evidence to submit, and assuming arguendo the trial court erred in failing to submit the (f)(7) mitigating circumstance to the jury ex mero motu, the defendant is not entitled to a third resentencing proceeding because this error is harmless beyond a reasonable doubt. The trial court's asserted error here”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. State v. Zuniga“`had this statutory mitigating circumstance been found and balanced against the aggravating circumstances, the jury would still have returned a sentence of death.'”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. State v. Zuniga“is prejudicial unless the State can demonstrate on appeal that it was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. State v. Zuniga
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.