Kirby v. State’s Empirical Analysis
1987
Citation profile
24 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 24 later decisions — most recently April 2021
24 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 43 Cal. 3d 739 - People v. Ghent · State v. Chaney · Pears v. State · Brezenoff v. State · Smith 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 24 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“the court is satisfied, after reviewing the totality of the circumstances, that [the defendant] can adequately be treated in the community and need not be incarcerated for the full presumptive term in order to prevent future criminal activity.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage“[O]nce the court finds the mitigating factor of unusual prospects for rehabilitation in the case of a first [felony] offender, it should evaluate the factor's impact on an appropriate sentence in the same way it would evaluate a statutory mitigating factor that had been established by clear and convincing evidence. The court should consider it in light of the totality of the cireumstances and in light of the Chaney sentencing criteria to determine whether the presumptive term should be adjusted. The court should deny referral to the three-judge panel only when it concludes that no adjustment to the presumptive term is appropriate in light of the factor. 7”
2 later decisions quote this exact passagee.g. Garner v. State · Harapat v. State“The three-judge panel is, of course, free to reevaluate [the record] in determining whether Kirby has the unusual prospects for rehabilitation required for application of the [non-statutory] mitigating factor. The three-judge panel is not bound by [the sentencing judge's] findings[,] nor is it bound [to accept the] testimony [favoring the defendant].”
2 later decisions quote this exact passagee.g. Winther v. State · Harapat 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.