State v. Cline’s Empirical Analysis
1991
Citation profile
65 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 65 later decisions — most recently June 2016 · most notably State v. Scurlock (1999), State v. Nolan (1994)
65 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 State v. Dulany · State v. Barber · State v. Sanders · Ætna Casualty & Surety Co. v. Austin · State v. Parkus
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 65 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“1. Subject to the limitation provided in subsection 3 of this section, upon a finding of guilt upon verdict or plea, the court shall decide the extent or duration of sentence or other disposition to be imposed under all the circumstances, having regard to the nature and circumstances of the offense and the history and character of the defendant and render judgment accordingly. 2. The court shall instruct the jury as to the range of punishment authorized by statute and upon a finding of guilt to assess and declare the punishment as a part of their verdict, unless (1) The defendant requests in writing, prior to voir dire, that the court assess the punishment in case of a finding of guilt, or (2) The state pleads and proves the defendant is a prior offender, persistent offender, dangerous offender, or persistent misdemeanor offender as defined in section 558.016, RSMo.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. State v. Campbell“The court in Cline , concluded by stating: The purpose of the rules is to enable the trial court to render a correct judgment where the jury has been properly instructed as to the range of punishment. This purpose cannot be accomplished where, as here, the jury was not properly instructed. Defendant’s contention entitles him to a new trial.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. State v. Shaw“The duty [fixing punishment] being thus imposed upon the jury, the defendant certainly has a corresponding right to have that duty properly and intelligently performed, and to the end that it may be so performed it is necessary that the jury be properly instructed as to the applicable law.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. State v. McClanahan
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.