Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 664 P2D 43 - Hopkinson v. State

Hopkinson v. State’s Empirical Analysis

1983

Citation profile

55
cited by 55 later decisions
1
cited 1 times by the Supreme Court
6
states following
March 2017
most recently cited

6 federal appellate · 2 district · 46 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 55 later decisions (1 by the Supreme Court) — most recently March 2017 · most notably Lindsey v. Louisiana (1983), Samarzia v. Clark County (1989)

6 federal appellate · 2 district · 46 state decisions

3101983199020002010decided

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 Jackson v. Virginia · Chapman v. State of California · In the Matter of Samuel Winship · North Carolina v. Pearce · Brady v. United States

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

  1. ““(c) The supreme court of Wyoming shall consider the punishment as well as any errors enumerated by way of appeal. “(d) With regard to the sentence, the court shall determine if: “(i) The sentence of death was imposed under the influence of passion, prejudice or any other arbitrary factor; “(ii) The evidence supports the jury’s or judge’s finding of an aggravating circumstance as enumerated in W.S. 6-54.2 [§ 6-4-102] and a lack of sufficient mitigating circumstances which outweigh the aggravating circumstances; “(iii) The sentence of death is excessive or disproportionate to the penalty imposed in similar cases, considering both the crime and the defendant. “(e) The court shall include in its decision a reference to those similar cases which it took into consideration. * * * ””
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the concurrence
  2. “1. The defendant has no significant history of prior criminal activity. 2. The murder was committed while the defendant was under the influence of extreme mental or emotional disturbance. 3. The victim was a participant in the defendant’s conduct, or consented to the act. 4. The defendant was an accomplice in a murder committed by another person and his participation in the homicidal act was relatively minor. 5. The defendant acted under extreme duress or under the substantial domination of another person. 6. The capacity of the defendant to appreciate the criminality of his conduct or to conform his conduct to the requirements of law was substantially impaired. 7. The age of the defendant at the time of the crime. 8. Any other circumstances deemed to be mitigating.”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the concurrence
  3. “'The scales must not be tipped by impermissible factors leaving us in a quandary as to what the jury would have done had impermissible factors not been present.”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the concurrence

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.