Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 717 P2D 261 - State v. Bishop

State v. Bishop’s Empirical Analysis

1986

Citation profile

48
cited by 48 later decisions
3
states following
April 2025
most recently cited

1 federal appellate · 47 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 48 later decisions — most recently April 2025 · most notably State v. Copeland (1988), State v. Shickles (1988)

1 federal appellate · 47 state decisions

20019861990200020102020decided

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 Estelle v. Gamble · Furman v. Georgia · Solem v. Helm · Williamson v. Lee Optical of Oklahoma, Inc. · Argersinger v. Hamlin

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

  1. “Excessive bail shall not be required; excessive fines shall not be imposed; nor shall cruel and unusual punishments be inflicted. Persons arrested or imprisoned shall not be treated with unnecessary rig- or.”
    4 later decisions quote this exact passage
  2. ““That the Legislature of this state has the sole power to fix the punishment to be inflicted for a particular crime, with the limitation only that it be not cruel or excessive, will not be questioned. That it may fix any punishment, subject to the above limitation, and leave no discretion whatever in the courts as to the extent or degree of punishment is a well-recognized and universally accepted doctrine, and under a statute fixing a definite period the court has no more discretion as to the punishment than the police officer whose duty it is to carry the punishment into effect....” 96”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage
  3. “In sum, a court’s proportionality analysis under the Eighth Amendment should be guided by objective criteria, including (i) the gravity of the offense and the harshness of the penalty; (ii) the sentences imposed on other criminals in the same jurisdiction; and (iii) the sentences imposed for commission of the same crime in other jurisdictions.”
    2 later decisions 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.