State v. Bruegger’s Empirical Analysis
2009
Citation profile
77
cited by 77 later decisions
1
states following
April 2019
most recently cited
1 federal appellate · 73 state decisions
Relationships
Applies 18 U.S.C. § 3553
Relies on Apprendi v. New Jersey · Gall v. United States · Solem v. Helm · Eddings v. Oklahoma · Harmelin v. Michigan
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 77 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“'[c]riminal punishment can have different goals, and choosing among them is within a legislature's discretion.' " Id. (quoting Graham , 560 U.S. at 48 ). "Legislative judgments are generally regarded as the most reliable objective indicators of community standards for purposes of determining whether a punishment is cruel and unusual.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the concurrence“A person convicted of a class “C” felony or greater offense under chapter 709 ... shall also be sentenced, in addition to any other punishment provided by law, to a special sentence committing the person into the custody of the director of the Iowa department of corrections for the rest of the person’s life, with eligibility for parole as provided in chapter 906. The special sentence imposed under this section shall commence upon completion of the sentence imposed under any applicable criminal sentencing provisions for the underlying criminal offense and the person shall begin the sentence under supervision as if on parole .... The revocation of release shall not be for a period greater than two years upon any first revocation, and five years upon any second or subsequent revocation.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“Article I, section 17 of the Iowa Constitution prohibits cruel and unusual punishment in language materially identical to its federal counterpart. Our past cases have generally assumed that the standards for assessing whether a sentence amounts to cruel and unusual punishment under the Iowa Constitution are identical to the Federal Constitution.”). .”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the dissent
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.