Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 501 U.S. 957 - Harmelin v. Michigan

Harmelin v. Michigan’s Empirical Analysis

1991

Citation profile

4,847
cited by 4,847 later decisions
58
cited 58 times by the Supreme Court
49
states following
December 2025
most recently cited

1,195 federal appellate · 122 district · 2,055 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 4,847 later decisions (58 by the Supreme Court) — most recently December 2025 · most notably Atkins v. Virginia (2002), Lockyer Attorney General of California v. Andrade (2003)

1,195 federal appellate · 122 district · 2,055 state decisions — followed in 49 states

1.6k01991200020102020decided

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 Carroll v. United States · Florida v. Royer · United States v. Mendenhall · Gregg v. Georgia · Furman v. Georgia

Cited together with Solem v. Helm · Rummel v. Estelle · Ewing v. California · Hutto v. Davis · Lockyer Attorney General of California v. Andrade

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 4,847 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. “extreme sentences that are 'grossly disproportionate' to the crime.”
    268 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the dissent
  2. “(i) the gravity of the offense and the harshness of the penalty; (ii) the sentences imposed on other criminals in the same jurisdiction; and (iii) the sentences imposed for commission of the same crime in other jurisdictions.”
    39 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the dissent
  3. “intra- and inter-jurisdictional analyses are appropriate only in the rare case in which a threshold comparison of the crime committed and the sentence imposed leads to an inference of gross disproportionality.”
    20 later decisions 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.