State v. Bannister’s Empirical Analysis
1984
Citation profile
4 federal appellate · 87 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 99 later decisions (1 by the Supreme Court) — most recently August 2016 · most notably McDonald v. Missouri (1985), State v. Parker (1994)
4 federal appellate · 87 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 Edwards v. Arizona · Gregg v. Georgia · Witherspoon v. Illinois · Gerstein v. Pugh · United States v. Jackson
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 99 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“an account of the crime from its inception to [his] arrest”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“The evidence showed that Miller visited the defendant in his motel room after the murder. Miller was drunk, and defen dant offered to escort him back to the trailer court. When the two men stopped to rest on a viaduct over some railroad tracks, Miller straddled the bridge railing, lost his balance and fell to the tracks below. Defendant, believing Miller to be dead, started back toward his motel. On his return defendant encountered two deputy sheriffs who had previously seen the two men approach the viaduct and who were looking for Miller and another unidentified subject in connection with the Ruestman murder. In response to their questions, defendant said his companion had gone to the Ramada, that he was returning to his motel, and that he did not know of any trailer parks in the area. The deputies left and defendant returned to his motel.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“Although not preserved for review, the Court finds no error in the alleged refusal to submit the statutory mitigating circumstance whether defendant acted under the substantial domination of another. In urging the Court to find plain error in the failure to submit the above mitigating circumstance, appellant cites evidence showing that ‘Indian’ was a mean person whom defendant feared. Other evidence showed that defendant expressed interest when offered the opportunity to make money by ‘hitting’ a man, and that defendant alone killed his victim while Indian remained miles away in Illinois. The evidence cited is insufficient to support the circumstance now urged.”
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.