Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 462 U.S. 862 - Zant v. Stephens

Zant v. Stephens’s Empirical Analysis

1983

Citation profile

3,919
cited by 3,919 later decisions
176
cited 176 times by the Supreme Court
40
states following
December 2024
most recently cited

1,177 federal appellate · 113 district · 1,550 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 3,919 later decisions (176 by the Supreme Court) — most recently December 2024 · most notably Strickland v. Washington (1984), Caldwell v. Mississippi (1985)

1,177 federal appellate · 113 district · 1,550 state decisions — followed in 40 states

1.4k019831990200020102020decided

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.

Appellate journey

reviewedStephens v. Zant (from Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals)

Relationships

Relies on Gregg v. Georgia · Furman v. Georgia · Lockett v. Ohio · Pinkerton v. United States · Williams v. People of State of New York

Cited together with Gregg v. Georgia · Strickland v. Washington · Lockett v. Ohio · Furman v. Georgia · Eddings v. Oklahoma

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 3,919 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. “an individualized determination on the basis of the character of the individual and the circumstances of the crime.”
    86 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “genuinely narrow the class of persons eligible for the death penalty and must reasonably justify the imposition of a more severe sentence on the defendant compared to others found guilty of murder.”
    78 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “even though [they] clearly did not channel the jury's discretion by enunciating specific standards to guide the jury's consideration of aggravating and mitigating circumstances.”
    43 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.