607 So. 2d 1171 - Jenkins v. State’s Empirical Analysis
1992
Citation profile
121 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 130 later decisions — most recently November 2017 · most notably 697 So. 2d 777 - Coleman v. State (1997), Foster v. State (1994)
121 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 Malloy v. Hogan · Payne v. Tennessee · Booth v. Maryland · Clemons v. Mississippi · Saffle v. Parks
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 130 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“This Court has often ruled that errors in the lower court that do not require reversal standing alone may nonetheless taken cumulatively require reversal.”
12 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Hill v. State · Lynch v. State“The evidence offered was proper and necessary to a development of the case and true characteristics of the victim and could not serve in any way to incite the jury.”
8 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“[Part I.] The Court instructs the Jury that in considering whether the capital offense was especially heinous, atrocious or cruel; heinous means extremely wicked or shockingly evil; atrocious means outrageously wicked and vile; and cruel means designed to inflict a high degree of pain with indifference to, or even enjoyment of, the suffering of others. [Part II.] You are further instructed that an especially heinous, atrocious or cruel capital offense is one accompanied by such additional acts as to set the crime apart from the norm of murders — the conscienceless or pitiless crime which is unnecessarily torturous to the victim. [Part III.] If you find from the evidence beyond a reasonable doubt that Davis utilized a method of killing which caused serious mutilation, that there was dismemberment of the body prior to death, that Davis inflicted physical or mental pain before death, that there was mental torture and aggravation before death, or that a lingering or *Page 662 torturous death was suffered by the victim then you may find this aggravating circumstance.”
7 later decisions 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.