Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 741 F.2d 805 - Jones v. Thigpen

Jones v. Thigpen’s Empirical Analysis

741 F.2d 805 · 1984

Citation profile

41
cited by 41 later decisions
3
states following
June 2006
most recently cited

19 federal appellate · 10 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 41 later decisions — most recently June 2006 · most notably 459 So. 2d 793 - Fairchild v. State (1984), 461 So. 2d 686 - Jones v. State (1984)

19 federal appellate · 10 state decisions

270198419902000decided

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 Jackson v. Virginia · Wainwright v. Sykes · Burks v. United States · Witherspoon v. Illinois · Furman v. Georgia

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

  1. “"Judicial decisions ordinarily apply retroactively. See Robinson v. Neil, 409 U.S. 505, 507-08 , 93 S.Ct. 876, 877-78 , 35 L.Ed.2d 29 (1973). `Indeed, a legal system based on precedent has a built-in presumption of retroactivity. Solem v. Stumes, ___ U.S. ___, ___, 104 S.Ct. 1338, 1341 , 79 L.Ed.2d 579 (1984)." — 741 F.2d at 810 .”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “an appellate court under Burks finds the prosecution's evidence in support of the death penalty insufficient, the defendant cannot again be made to face a possible death sentence.”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “The record in this case does not tell us what Jones and his accomplices separately or collectively intended to do when they drove to downtown Biloxi in December of 1974. It does not tell us what happened inside Art's Levis Store. It does not specify who supplied or carried the weapon that was used to bludgeon Arthur Weinberger to death, and the weapon itself was not introduced at trial. This record does not tell us whether Jones or his accomplice did the actual killing. The State's case consists only of the testimony of several witnesses who observed Jones and his accomplice entering and departing the store, and the testimony of the witness who discovered Weinberger's body inside the store immediately afterwards. Enmund [from which Section 99-19-101(7) has been taken] undoubtedly, and unfortunately in this case, requires more.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority

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.