Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 66 SO3D 830 - Lane v. State

Lane v. State’s Empirical Analysis

2010

Citation profile

2
cited by 2 later decisions
1
states following
February 2018
most recently cited

1 state decisions

Relationships

Relies on Solem v. Helm · Harmelin v. Michigan · Ewing v. California · 392 So. 2d 1274 - Watson v. State · Smallwood v. Johnson

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

  1. “' Ewing v. California , 538 U.S. 11 , 17, 123 S.Ct. 1179 , 155 L.Ed.2d 108 (2003), quoting Harmelin v. Michigan , 501 U.S. 957 , 996-97, 111 S.Ct. 2680 , 115 L.Ed.2d 836 (1991). We recognized this limited principle in Wilson v. State , 830 So.2d 765 (Ala. Crim. App. 2001).”
    2 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.