Raulerson v. State’s Empirical Analysis
1978
Citation profile
2 federal appellate · 26 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 31 later decisions (1 by the Supreme Court) — most recently May 2016 · most notably 408 So. 2d 1024 - Jent v. State (1981), 399 So. 2d 964 - Sireci v. State (1981)
2 federal appellate · 26 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 Boykin v. Alabama · Furman v. Georgia · Estelle v. Williams · Gardner v. Florida · 283 So. 2d 1 - State v. Dixon
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 31 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“A material variance between the names alleged, and that proved, is fatal. Primarily, it is a question of identity and the essential thing in the requirement of correspondence between the allegation of the name in the indictment and the proof is that the record must be such as to inform the defendant of the charge against him and to protect him against another prosecution for the same offense.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“THE COURT: Do you, or anyone on your behalf, have any legal cause to show why sentence should not be pronounced? MR. STEDEFORD: No legal cause at this time, Your Honor. THE COURT: Is there anything further in mitigation or aggravation? MR. STEDEFORD: Your Honor, I talked with Mr. Raulerson about the matter earlier. Anything he might say, we realize, of course, that you have the Presentence Investigation Report that you have provided to me. I have gone over it, I know that you have. THE COURT: Mr. Stedeford, I requested my secretary to give you two copies of that so Mr. Raulerson may have one also. MR. STEDEFORD: I have not given him his copy. I received a second copy earlier just a few moments ago, but I will give him one at the conclusion of this hearing. Your Honor, Mr. Raulerson and I did discuss what mitigation we might bring before the Court. We, frankly, feel as though it would do little good to talk of mitigation in this case, and we feel as though you have considered it, and that Mr. Raulerson and I both concur that anything we might say would not change what you might be doing today. At this time, Your Honor, there’s nothing further to say in mitigation. THE COURT: Does the State have anything further in aggravation? MR. GREENE: Nothing, Your Honor, other than the comments that the State, of course, made and brought — and put into evidence at the sentencing phase of the trial. THE COURT: Thank you, gentlemen. (Whereupon, the Court proceeded to sentence the Defendant.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“had no significant history of prior criminal activity.”
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.