Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 598 SW2D 238 - Russell v. State

Russell v. State’s Empirical Analysis

1980

Citation profile

103
cited by 103 later decisions
1
cited 1 times by the Supreme Court
3
states following
September 2008
most recently cited

2 federal appellate · 96 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 103 later decisions (1 by the Supreme Court) — most recently September 2008 · most notably Hawkins v. State (1983), Scott v. Florida (1980)

2 federal appellate · 96 state decisions

790198019902000decided

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 Barker v. Wingo · Witherspoon v. Illinois · Lockett v. Ohio · Jurek v. Texas · Klopfer v. State of 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 103 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. ““In all prosecutions for murder or voluntary manslaughter, the state or the defendant shall be permitted to offer testimony as to all relevant facts and circumstances surrounding the killing and the previous relationship existing between the accused and the deceased, together with all relevant facts and circumstances going to show the condition of the mind of the accused at the time of the offense.””
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  2. “[t]he general rule against admitting evidence of other crimes by the accused is inapplicable if such evidence logically tends to show his guilt of the offense charged. In other words, relevant evidence that tends to prove that the accused committed the crime charged is not inadmissible simply because it may also reveal that he has committed other crimes.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  3. “Specifically, we hold that a sentence of death cannot be carried out if the jury that imposed or recommended it was chosen by excluding veniremen for cause simply because they voiced general objections to the death penalty or expressed conscientious or religious scruples against its infliction.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage

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.