State v. Brimmer’s Empirical Analysis
1994
Citation profile
56 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 56 later decisions — most recently July 2018 · most notably State v. Bland (1997), State v. Hall (1997)
56 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 Jackson v. Virginia · Delaware v. Van Arsdall · Gregg v. Georgia · Furman v. Georgia · Colorado v. Connelly
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 56 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“(9) the jury is not required to make the ultimate determination that death is the appropriate penalty.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the concurrence“Defendant says he was prejudiced by failure to instruct mitigating circumstances [TenmCode Ann. § 39-13-2040(2) and (8) ] raised by the evidence .... The trial court declined to instruct the jury on these factors because he found no evidence in the record that as a result of mental disease the defendant could not conform his conduct to the requirements of the law.... The trial court was of the opinion that the disorder was prevalent even among law abiding persons, and in the absence of specific proof or a statement of causation about the relationship between the disorder and the offense, the instruction was not warranted. We do not find anything in the record to dispute this finding. The issue is without merit.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Brimmer v. State“Whenever any penal statute or penal legislative act of the state is repealed or amended by a subsequent legislative act, any offense, as defined by the statute or act being repealed or amended, committed while such statute or act was in full force and effect shall be prosecuted under the act or statute in effect at the time of the commission of the offense. Except as provided under the provisions of § 40-35-117, in the event the subsequent act provides for a lesser penalty, any punishment imposed shall be in accordance with the subsequent act.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. State v. Cauthern
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.