Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 636 SW2D 667 - State v. Shaw

State v. Shaw’s Empirical Analysis

1982

Citation profile

133
cited by 133 later decisions
1
cited 1 times by the Supreme Court
3
states following
April 2022
most recently cited

10 federal appellate · 110 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 133 later decisions (1 by the Supreme Court) — most recently April 2022 · most notably State v. Antwine (1987), State v. Tokar (1996)

10 federal appellate · 110 state decisions

89019821990200020102020decided

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 Gregg v. Georgia · Furman v. Georgia · Lockett v. Ohio · Woodson v. North Carolina · Beck v. Alabama

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

  1. “Those imprisoned for violating our laws have cast upon the state both the expense of, and the responsibility for, their safe care while in confinement. We have always held the state to the highest standards in the exercise of that responsibility. Those for whom the state must bear responsibility should be held to an equally high standard of conduct. We are unaware of either sound reason or social policy for excusing the senseless killing of either fellow prisoners or corrections officers.”
    7 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the dissent
  2. “[I]t would be foreign to our concept of criminal jurisprudence to suggest that relevant evidence should be inadmissible merely because it tends to prejudice the defendant (citation omitted). Any incriminating evidence is by definition prejudicial. Relevance is the touchstone of due process, and beyond that the decision whether potentially prejudicial or inflammatory evidence should be admitted lies within the sound discretion of the trial court (citation omitted), which is in a better position to balance the probative value and danger of the evidence.”
    5 later decisions quote this exact passage
  3. “(1) Whether the sentence of death was imposed under the influence of passion, prejudice, or any other arbitrary factor; and (2) Whether the evidence supports the jury's or judge's finding of a statutory aggravating circumstance as enumerated in section 565.012; and (3) Whether the sentence of death is excessive or disproportionate to the penalty imposed in similar cases, considering both the crime and the defendant.”
    4 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.