Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 553 F.2d 342 - Vines v. Muncy

Vines v. Muncy’s Empirical Analysis

553 F.2d 342 · 1977

Citation profile

39
cited by 39 later decisions
2
cited 2 times by the Supreme Court
2
states following
March 2018
most recently cited

16 federal appellate · 1 district · 14 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 39 later decisions (2 by the Supreme Court) — most recently March 2018 · most notably United States v. Goodwin (1982), Hutto v. Davis (1982)

16 federal appellate · 1 district · 14 state decisions

19019771980199020002010decided

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 North Carolina v. Pearce · Gregg v. Georgia · Witherspoon v. Illinois · Snyder v. Commonwealth of Massachusetts · Woodson v. North Carolina

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

  1. “[T]he punishment as fixed by the jury is not final or absolute, since its finding on the proper punishment is subject to suspension by the trial judge, in whole or in part, on the basis of any mitigating facts that the convicted defendant can marshal. The verdict of the jury is the fixing of maximum punishment which may be served. Under such practice, the convicted criminal defendant is entitled to “two decisions” on the sentence, one by the jury and the other by the trial judge in the exercise of his statutory right to suspend; his “ultimate sentence . . . does not [therefore] rest with the jury” alone but is always subject to the control of the trial judge. This procedure makes the jury’s finding little more than an advisory opinion or first-step decision. Any criticism of jury sentencing because it lacks the objectivity and principled decision of a judge is thus overcome by the existence of the power in the trial judge to bring his so-called superior judg ment to bear upon the issue of proper punishment in reaching his decision whether to suspend the sentence or not.”
    7 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority

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.