Ajabu v. State’s Empirical Analysis
1998
Citation profile
1 federal appellate · 70 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 71 later decisions — most recently December 2023 · most notably Richardson v. State (1999), 99 Ohio St. 3d 439 - State v. Williams (2003)
1 federal appellate · 70 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 · Edwards v. Arizona · Escobedo v. Illinois · Griffin v. California · Malloy v. Hogan
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 71 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“The statute provides that life without parole is imposed under the same standards and is subject to the same requirements.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the concurrencee.g. Laux v. Zatecky · Laux v. State“a search for the common understanding of both those who framed it and those who ratified it. Furthermore, the intent of the framers of the Constitution is paramount in determining the meaning of a provision. In order to give life to their intended meaning, we examine the language of the text in the context of the history surrounding its drafting and ratification, the purpose and structure of our Constitution, and case law interpreting the specific provisions. In construing the Constitution, we look to the history of the times, and examine the state of things existing when the constitution or any part thereof was framed and adopted, to ascertain the old law, the mischief, and the remedy.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“The trial court's statement of reasons (1) must identify each mitigating and aggravating cireumstance found, (M) must include the specific facts and reasons which lead the court to find the existence of each such cireumstance, (i) must articulate that the mitigating and aggravating circumstances have been evaluated and balanced in determination of the sentence, and (iv) must set forth the trial court's personal conclusion that the sentence is appropriate punishment for this offender and this crime.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the concurrencee.g. Clark v. State · Dumas 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.