Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 686 SW2D 118 - Stewart v. State

Stewart v. State’s Empirical Analysis

1984

Citation profile

88
cited by 88 later decisions
3
cited 3 times by the Supreme Court
1
states following
September 2017
most recently cited

80 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 88 later decisions (3 by the Supreme Court) — most recently September 2017 · most notably Franklin v. Lynaugh (1988), Harris v. State (1989)

80 state decisions

4301984199020002010decided

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 Lockett v. Ohio · Eddings v. Oklahoma · Woodson v. North Carolina · Jurek v. Texas · Roberts v. Louisiana

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

  1. ““Rather than acknowledge the circumstantial inadequacy of 37.071(b)(2) to accomplish the mandate of Lockett and its progeny, a majority of this Court has blithely said, time and again, that in considering whether to impose a death sentence the jury must be allowed to consider whatever evidence of mitigating circumstances the defense can bring before it. But they have also repeatedly denied the utility, much less necessity, of informing the jury that they may so consider the evidence.””
    3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the dissent
  2. “... [A] defendant is entitled to jurors whose consideration of mitigating circumstances is not limited to whether that evidence does or does not indicate future dangerousness. The jury must not be precluded in law or in practice from according independent weight to factors that are mitigating but perhaps irrelevant to the probability issue of future dangerous conduct. [Citations omitted] ... [A] majority of this Court has blithely said, time and again, that in considering whether to impose a death sentence the jury must be allowed to consider whatever evidence of mitigating circumstances the defense can bring before it. But they also have repeatedly denied the utility, much less necessity, of informing the jury that they may so consider that evidence.”
    2 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.