State v. Larry’s Empirical Analysis
1997
Citation profile
2 federal appellate · 52 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 60 later decisions — most recently November 2018 · most notably State v. Lloyd (2001), State v. Grooms (2000)
2 federal appellate · 52 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 Griffin v. California · Caldwell v. Mississippi · Penry v. Lynaugh · Payne v. Tennessee · Zant v. Stephens
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 60 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[A] criminal defendant has a constitutional right to plead not guilty and be tried by a jury. Reference by the State to a defendant's failure to plead guilty violates his constitutional right to a jury trial.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“We find that the theory advanced by Wuornos is insufficient as a matter of law to establish this particular mitigating fac-tor____ It would be absurd to construe this language as applying whenever victims have engaged in some unlawful or even dangerous transaction that merely provided the killer a better opportunity to commit murder, which the victim did not intend. What the language plainly means is that the victim has knowingly and voluntarily participated with the killer in some transaction that in and of itself would be likely to result in the victim’s death, viewed from the perspective of a reasonable person. An example would be two persons participating in a duel, with one being killed as a result. The statute does not encompass situations in ivhick the killer surprises the victim ivith deadly force, as happened here under any construction of the facts.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“(1) it appeared to defendant and he believed it to be necessary to kill the [victim] in order to save himself from death or great bodily harm; and (2) defendant’s belief was reasonable in that the circumstances as they appeared to him at that time were sufficient to create such a belief in the mind of a person of ordinary firmness; and (3) defendant was not the aggressor in bringing on the affray, i.e., he did not aggressively and willingly enter into the fight without legal excuse or provocation; and (4) defendant did not use excessive force, i.e., did not use more force than was necessary or reasonably appeared to him to be necessary under the circumstances to protect himself from death or great bodily harm.”
1 later decision 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.