Miller v. Florida’s Empirical Analysis
1983
Citation profile
27 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 34 later decisions (1 by the Supreme Court) — most recently October 2010 · most notably 495 So. 2d 154 - Dufour v. State (1986), 473 So. 2d 1260 - Brown v. State (1985)
27 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 Gregg v. Georgia · Lockett v. Ohio · Eddings v. Oklahoma · Woodson v. North Carolina · Jurek v. Texas
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 34 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“"An appellate court, in the performance of the viewing function which this Court has held indispensable to a constitutionally acceptable capital punishment scheme, must examine the sentences imposed in all capital cases in the jurisdiction in order 'to ensure that similar results are reached in similar cases.’ Proffitt v. Florida, 428 U.S. 242 (1976) (opinion of Stewart, Powell and Stevens, JJ.). See also, e.g., Godfrey v. Georgia, 446 U.S. 420 (1980) (plurality). The sentencer has a different role. The sentencer's duty is to determine the first instance whether a death sentence is warranted for a particular defendant. That determination can only be made on the basis of the evidence that the judge has heard with respect to that defendant, and, under the Florida procedure, on the recommendation made by the juiy that heard that evidence. A capital sentencing determination cannot properly be made on the basis of evidence presented in another trial or a recommendation made by another jury.””
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. State v. Gamble“objective consideration of the particularized circumstances of the individual offense and the individual offender.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the dissent
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.