Kansas v. Marsh’s Empirical Analysis
2006
Citation profile
84 federal appellate · 20 district · 227 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 400 later decisions (20 by the Supreme Court) — most recently February 2025 · most notably Baze v. Rees (2008), Harbison v. Bell (2009)
84 federal appellate · 20 district · 227 state decisions — followed in 20 states
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.
Appellate journey
reviewedthe decision below (from Supreme Court of Kansas)
Relationships
Applies 28 U.S.C. § 1257 · 28 U.S.C. § 453 · 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (Civil Rights Act of 1871 / Section 1983 (Ku Klux Klan Act))
Relies on In the Matter of Samuel Winship · Delaware v. Van Arsdall · Gregg v. Georgia · Furman v. Georgia · Michigan v. Long
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 400 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[s]o long as a state's method of allocating the burdens of proof does not lessen the state's burden to prove every element of the offense charged, or in this case to prove the existence of aggravating circumstances, a defendant's constitutional rights are not violated by placing on him the burden of proving mitigating circumstances sufficiently substantial to call for leniency.”
5 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. State v. Dorsey · Rogers v. State“would change the uniform 'law of the land' into a crazy quilt.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the dissent“If you have unanimously found beyond a reasonable doubt that one or more of the statutory aggravating circumstances submitted in Instruction No. 13 exists, you must then determine whether there are facts or circumstances in mitigation of punishment which are sufficient to outweigh facts and circumstances in aggravation of punishment. In deciding this question, you may consider all of the evidence presented in both the guilt and the punishment stages of trial, including evidence presented in support of the statutory aggravating circumstances submitted in Instruction No. 13, and evidence presented in support of mitigating circumstances submitted in this instruction. You shall also consider any facts or circumstances which you find from the evidence in mitigation of punishment. It is not necessary that all jurors agree upon particular facts and circumstances in mitigation of punishment. If each juror determines that there are facts or circumstances in mitigation of punishment sufficient to outweigh the facts or circumstances in aggravation of punishment, then you must return a verdict fixing defendant's punishment at imprisonment for life by the Department of Corrections without eligibility for probation or parole.”
2 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.