Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 464 SO2D 475 - Jordan v. State

Jordan v. State’s Empirical Analysis

1985

Citation profile

100
cited by 100 later decisions
1
cited 1 times by the Supreme Court
1
states following
December 2018
most recently cited

1 federal appellate · 83 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 100 later decisions (1 by the Supreme Court) — most recently December 2018 · most notably Clemons v. Mississippi (1990), 645 So. 2d 829 - Chase v. State (1994)

1 federal appellate · 83 state decisions

3201985199020002010decided

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 · Griffin v. California · Witherspoon v. Illinois · Lockett v. Ohio · Swain v. State of Alabama

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

  1. “Again, we feel that the meaning of such terms is a matter of common knowledge, so that an ordinary man would not have to guess at what was intended. It is our interpretation that heinous means extremely wicked or shockingly evil; that atrocious means outrageously wicked and vile; and, that cruel means designed to inflict a high degree of pain with utter indifference to, or even enjoyment of, the suffering of others. What is intended to be included are those capital crimes where the actual commission of the capital felony was accompanied by such additional acts as to set the crime apart from the norm of capital felonies — the conscienceless or pitiless crime which is unnecessarily tortuous to the victim.”
    3 later decisions quote this exact passage
    e.g. Clemons v. State · 484 So. 2d 339 - Wiley v. State
  2. “The proper procedure and policy when an expert witness is offered is for the court to permit qualification by the party offering the expert witness, and then to permit voir dire by the opposite party before ruling on the competency of the witness... . [T]he failure ... to follow [this] procedure does not [ per se ] constitute reversible error.”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage
    e.g. 617 So. 2d 999 - McNeal v. State · 739 So. 2d 451 - McBeath v. State
  3. “(a) The defendant actually killed; (b) The defendant attempted to kill; (c) The defendant intended that a killing take place; (d) The defendant contemplated that lethal force would be employed.”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage
    e.g. Lockett v. State · 806 So. 2d 1031 - Stevens v. State

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.