Farris v. State’s Empirical Analysis
1976
Citation profile
1 federal appellate · 53 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 57 later decisions (1 by the Supreme Court) — most recently May 2005 · most notably California v. Ramos (1983), 37 Cal. 3d 136 - People v. Ramos (1984)
1 federal appellate · 53 state decisions
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 Hale v. State · Graham v. State · Tennessee Electric Power Co. v. City of Chattanooga · Pharr v. Nashville, C. & St. L. Ry. · Dykes v. State
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 57 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““With respect to the further argument contained in the majority opinion that the • provisions of Section 2 of Chapter 163 of the Public Acts of 1973 are unconstitutionally vague and impossible of application, I simply cannot agree. There is absolutely no evidence in any of the records before this Court that the jury had the slightest difficulty in understanding or applying the statutes in question, and it is clear from listening to the legislative debates on this Act that the General Assembly felt it necessary and proper for jurors to be allowed to have a general understanding of parole procedures.””
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Farris v. State““ . . . , Chapter 163 of the Public Acts of 1973 is consistent with the judicial history of this State, and simply represents a policy decision by the General Assembly contrary to that which had previously been made by the courts. So long as the jurors are the judges of the law as well as the facts, and so long as the jury has the function of fixing the sentence of one accused of crime, . . . , it is within the legislative prerogative to authorize the jurors to consider parole eligibility.””
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Farris 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.