724 So. 2d 342 - Davis v. State’s Empirical Analysis
1998
Citation profile
1 federal appellate · 47 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 48 later decisions — most recently January 2015 · most notably 794 So. 2d 181 - Williams v. State (2001), 897 So. 2d 921 - Payton v. State (2003)
1 federal appellate · 47 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 Solem v. Helm · Harmelin v. Michigan · Kemmler · State of Louisiana Francis v. Resweber · 681 So. 2d 521 - Hoops v. State
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.
“[T]he general rule in this state is that a sentence cannot be disturbed on appeal so long as it does not exceed the maximum term allowed by statute. This Court will review a sentence, however, where it is alleged that the penalty imposed is disproportionate to the crime charged ... The United States Supreme Court set out three factors for courts to consider when conducting a proportionality analysis. The criteria include: (1) the gravity of the offense and the harshness of the penalty; (2) the sentences imposed on other criminals in the same jurisdiction; and (3) the sentences imposed for commission of the same crime in other jurisdictions.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the dissente.g. Tompkins v. State · Towner v. State“[O]ne cannot but be concerned about the severity of the sentence ... in the absence of anything appearing in the record which reflects egregious circumstances.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passagee.g. White v. State · Bolton v. State“Even as to those circumstances for which the statutes provide mandatory sentences, the punishment must be weighed against the prohibition imposed in the Eighth Amendment to the United States Constitution against cruel and unusual punishment.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the concurrencee.g. Tompkins v. State · Jones 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.