State v. Pearson’s Empirical Analysis
1993
Citation profile
1 federal appellate · 51 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 52 later decisions — most recently March 2021 · most notably State v. Kerby (2007), House v. State (1995)
1 federal appellate · 51 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 Miranda v. State of Arizona Vignera · Mathews v. Eldridge · Boykin v. Alabama · Mullane v. Central Hanover Bank & Trust Co. · United States v. Marion
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 52 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“1. A law which provides for the infliction of punishment upon a person for an act done which, when it was committed, was innocent. 2. A law which aggravates a crime or makes it greater than when it was committed. 3. A law that changes punishment or inflicts a greater punishment than the law annexed to the crime when it was committed. 4.A law that changes the rules of evidence and receives (sic) less or different testimony than was required at the time of the commission of the offense in order to convict the offender. [[Image here]] Every law which, in relation to the offense or its consequences, alters the situation of a person to his disadvantage[.]”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage“in order to comply with the ex post facto prohibitions of the U.S. and Tennessee Constitutions, trial court judges imposing sentences after the effective date of the 1989 statute, for crimes committed prior thereto, must calculate the appropriate sentence under both the 1982 statute and the 1989 statute, in their entirety, and then impose the lesser sentence of the two.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passagee.g. State v. Jordan · State v. Harris“[I]n determining whether an ex post fac-to violation exists in the context of sentencing, the critical question under both the United States and Tennessee Constitutions is whether the law changes the punishment to the defendant’s disadvantage, or inflicts a greater punishment than the law allowed when the offense occurred.”
3 later decisions 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.