Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 749 S.W.2d 356 - State v. Jones

State v. Jones’s Empirical Analysis

1988

Citation profile

41
cited by 41 later decisions
2
states following
August 2013
most recently cited

6 federal appellate · 33 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 41 later decisions — most recently August 2013 · most notably State v. Harris (1994), State v. McMillin (1990)

6 federal appellate · 33 state decisions

3101988199020002010decided

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 Witherspoon v. Illinois · Wainwright v. Witt · Adams v. Texas · Booth v. Maryland · Davis 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. ““[I]n cases other than those in which the range of punishment includes the death penalty, the usual rule is ‘that error may not be predicated on the sustaining of a challenge for cause if a full panel of qualified jurors is tendered for peremptory challenge.’ ””
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage
  2. “(1) Whether the defendant was convicted of murder on August 13, 1981, in the Circuit Court of St. Louis City of the State of Missouri; (2) Whether the murder of Robert Baker involved torture or depravity of mind and that as a result thereof it was outrageously or wantonly vile, horrible or inhumane;[ 10 ] (3) Whether at the time of the murder of Robert Baker, the defendant was in the lawful custody of the Missouri State Penitentiary.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  3. “1. Whether the defendant murdered Elizabeth A. DeCaro for another, for the purpose of defendant receiving money or any other thing of monetary value from Elizabeth A. DeCaro or another. 2. Whether the defendant, as agent or employee of Richard DeCaro and at his direction, murdered Elizabeth A. DeCaro.”
    1 later decision 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.