Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 463 U.S. 939 - Barclay v. Florida

Barclay v. Florida’s Empirical Analysis

1983

Citation profile

1,153
cited by 1,153 later decisions
77
cited 77 times by the Supreme Court
33
states following
March 2026
most recently cited

333 federal appellate · 40 district · 412 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 1,153 later decisions (77 by the Supreme Court) — most recently March 2026 · most notably Strickland v. Washington (1984), Wainwright v. Witt (1985)

333 federal appellate · 40 district · 412 state decisions — followed in 33 states

468019831990200020102020decided

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 · Furman v. Georgia · Lockett v. Ohio · Engle v. Isaac · Eddings v. Oklahoma

Cited together with Zant v. Stephens · Lockett v. Ohio · Gregg v. Georgia · Strickland v. Washington · Proffitt v. Florida

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 1,153 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. “[w]hat is important ... is an individualized determination on the basis of the character of the individual and the circumstances of the crime.”
    44 later decisions quote this exact passage
  2. “the Constitution does not prohibit consideration at the sentencing phase of information not directly related to either statutory aggravating or statutory mitigating factors, as long as that information is relevant to the character of the defendant or the circumstances of the crime”
    19 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the concurrence
  3. “[t]here is no reason why the Florida Supreme Court cannot examine the balance struck by the trial judge and decide that the elimination of improperly considered aggravating circumstances could not possibly affect the balance.”
    12 later decisions 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.