Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 339 MD 675 - Jennings v. State

Jennings v. State’s Empirical Analysis

1995

Citation profile

47
cited by 47 later decisions
7
states following
July 2020
most recently cited

47 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 47 later decisions — most recently July 2020 · most notably Jackson v. State (2001), Roary v. State (2005)

47 state decisions

2401995200020102020decided

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 Williams v. People of State of New York · Bordenkircher v. Hayes · United States v. Grayson · Thompson v. Virginia · Logan 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 47 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. “[A] sentencing court may consider, on the issue of a defendant's prospects for rehabilitation, the defendant's lack of remorse.”
    3 later decisions quote this exact passage
  2. “permitting the trial court to base its sentence on perceptions ... derived from the evidence presented at the trial, the demeanor and veracity of the defendant gleaned from his various court appearances, as well as the data acquired from such other sources as the presentence investigation or any personal knowledge the judge may have gained from living in the same community as the offender is perfectly acceptable.”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage
  3. ““ ‘only three grounds for appellate review of sentences are recognized in this State: (1) whether the sentence constitutes cruel and unusual punishment or violates other constitutional requirements; (2) whether the sentencing judge was motivated by ill-will, prejudice or other impermissible considerations; and (3) whether the sentence is within statutory limits.’ ””
    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.