Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 519 NW2D 50 - State v. Ferguson

State v. Ferguson’s Empirical Analysis

1994

Citation profile

10
cited by 10 later decisions
2
states following
April 1998
most recently cited

10 state decisions

Relationships

Relies on Solem v. Helm · United States v. Hendrix · State v. Basker · State v. Andrews · State v. Lykken

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

  1. ““On appeal, we first determine whether the sentence ‘shocks the conscience’ or is so disproportionate to the crime that it activates the Eighth Amendment “within and without jurisdiction’ proportionality tests.” State v. Lykken, 484 N.W.2d 869, 879 (S.D.1992); State v. Basker, 468 N.W.2d 413, 418 (S.D.1991). Accord State v. Andrews, 393 N.W.2d 76, 82-83 (S.D.1986); Weiker II [State v. Weiker ], 366 N.W.2d [823] at 827 (S.D.1985). “Absent a sentence which is so excessive in duration that it shocks the conscience of the court, it is well settled in South Dakota that a sentence within statutory limits is not reviewable on appeal.” Lykken, 484 N.W.2d at 879 ; State v. Janssen, 371 N.W.2d 353, 356 (S.D.1985) (citing cases). Stated alternatively, we will only engage in extensive review of a sentence where we have first determined the sentence was manifestly disproportionate to the crime. State v. Holloway, 482 N.W.2d 306, 310-311 (S.D.1992); Weiker II, 366 N.W.2d at 827. “If a sentence is manifestly disproportionate to the crime, [in light of the gravity of the offense and harshness of the penalty] ... then the other two factors listed in Helm [ 463 U.S. 277 , 103 S.Ct. 3001 , 77 L.Ed.2d 637 (1983) ] [sentence imposed on others in the same jurisdiction and in other jurisdictions] become more focused and require extensive review.” Weiker II, 366 N.W.2d at 827. See also Helm, 463 U.S. at 292 , 103 S.Ct. at 3011 77 L.Ed.2d at 650 .”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage
  2. “First, is the punishment so excessive or so cruel, ‘as to meet the disapproval and condemnation of the conscience and reason of men generally.’ And second whether the punishment is so excessive or so cruel as to shock the collective conscience of this court.”
    2 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.