Robinson v. State’s Empirical Analysis

1977

Citation profile

cited by 43 later decisions

states following

February 2001

most recently cited

37 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 43 later decisions — most recently February 2001 · most notably Matson v. State (1991), Green v. Johnson (1997)

37 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 Gregg v. Georgia · Furman v. Georgia · Jurek v. Texas · Proffitt v. Florida · Jurek 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 43 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

““... In the proceeding, evidence may be presented as to any matter that the court deems relevant to sentence. This subsection shall not be construed to authorize the introduction of any evidence secured in violation of the Constitution of the United States or of the State of Texas.” (Emphasis supplied.) 10”
5 later decisions quote this exact passage
e.g. Smith v. State · Smith v. State
“‘By authorizing the defense to bring before the jury at the separate sentencing hearing whatever mitigating circumstances relating to the individual defendant can be adduced, Texas has ensured that the sentencing jury will have adequate guidance to enable it to perform its sentencing function .... Because this system serves to assure that sentences of death will not be “wantonly” or “freakishly” imposed, it does not violate the Constitution. Furman v. Georgia, 408 U.S. [238], at 310, 92 S.Ct. [2726] at 2762, 33 L.Ed.2d 346 .’ See and compare Gregg v. Georgia, 428 U.S. 153 , 96 S.Ct. 2909 , 49 L.Ed.2d 859 (1976); and Profitt v. Florida, 428 U.S. 242 , 96 S.Ct. [2960, 49 L.Ed.2d 913 ]. In Moore v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 542 S.W.2d 664 (1976), we held that it was proper for two psychiatrists to give testimony at the punishment stage of trial relating to the issue of whether or not a probability existed that the defendant would commit criminal acts of violence which would constitute a continuing threat to society. * * * See also, Livingston v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 542 S.W.2d 655 (1976); Granviel [v. State, 552 S.W.2d 107 (1976)]; ... Smith v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 540 S.W.2d 693 (1976); [and Gholson and Ross v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 542 S.W.2d 395 (1976)]. Thus, it would appear that the statute allows a trial judge broad discretion in determining just what constitutes ‘relevant evidence’ at an Article 37.071, supra, proceeding. [In the instant case] Dr. Lawrence S. Schoenfeld a clinical ”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage
e.g. Hammett v. State · Garcia 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.