Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 442 U.S. 510 - Sandstrom v. Montana

Sandstrom v. Montana’s Empirical Analysis

1979

Citation profile

6,466
cited by 6,466 later decisions
140
cited 140 times by the Supreme Court
48
states following
March 2026
most recently cited

1,933 federal appellate · 172 district · 3,182 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 6,466 later decisions (140 by the Supreme Court) — most recently March 2026 · most notably Apprendi v. New Jersey (2000), Teague v. Lane (1989)

1,933 federal appellate · 172 district · 3,182 state decisions — followed in 48 states

3.5k0197919801990200020102020decided

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 Chapman v. State of California · In the Matter of Samuel Winship · Roviaro v. United States · Morissette v. United States

Cited together with In the Matter of Samuel Winship · Francis v. Franklin · Chapman v. State of California · Mullaney v. Wilbur · Cupp v. Naughten

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 6,466 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. “the law presumes that a person intends the ordinary consequences of his voluntary acts.”
    238 later decisions quote this exact passage
  2. “not rhetorically inconsistent with a conclusive or burden-shifting presumption.”
    28 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the concurrence
  3. “law presumes that a person intends the ordinary consequences of his voluntary acts”
    15 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority

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.