Nuckols v. State’s Empirical Analysis
1984
Citation profile
4 federal appellate · 32 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 42 later decisions (1 by the Supreme Court) — most recently December 2000 · most notably Adamson v. Ricketts (1988), Cartwright v. Maynard (1987)
4 federal appellate · 32 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 Miranda v. State of Arizona Vignera · Chapman v. State of California · Wong Sun v. United States · Edwards v. Arizona · Rhode Island v. Innis
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 42 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“especially heinous, atrocious, or cruel.”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the concurrence““As used in these Instructions, the term ‘heinous’ means extremely wicked or shockingly evil; ‘Atrocious’ means outrageously wicked and vile; ‘Cruel’ means pitiless, or designed to inflict a high degree of pain, utter indifference to, or enjoyment of, the sufferings of others. “The phrase ‘especially heinous, atrocious, or cruel’ is directed to those crimes where the death of the victim was preceded by torture of the victim or serious physical abuse.””
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the concurrence“[Ajdmission of photographs rests largely within the discretion of the trial judge, whose ruling will not be disturbed on appeal absent an abuse of discretion. Glidewell v. State, 626 P.2d 1351 (Okl.Cr.1981). An abuse of discretion will be found, however, when the photographs are gruesome, and their probative value is substantially outweighed by potential prejudice to the accused. Oxendine v. State, 335 P.2d 940 (Okl.Cr.1958); 12 O.S.1981, § 2403.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the concurrencee.g. Thompson v. State · Landis v. State
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.