Young v. State’s Empirical Analysis
1976
Citation profile
8 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 8 later decisions — most recently October 2001
8 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 Williams v. People of State of New York · People v. McFarlin · Jewell v. State · Berfield v. State · Walker 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 8 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““.. . highly relevant — if not essential — to his selection of an appropriate sentence is the possession of the fullest information possible concerning the defendant’s life and characteristics. And modern concepts individualizing punishment have made it all the more necessary that the sentencing judge not be denied the opportunity to obtain pertinent information by a requirement of rigid adherence of restrictive rules of evidence properly applicable to the trial . . .[probation] reports have been given a high value by con scientious judges who want to sentence persons on the best available information rather than on guesswork and inadequate information . . ." Williams v. New York, supra, 337 U.S. at 247 , 69 S.Ct. at 1083 .”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. State v. Radi
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.