Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 882 So. 2d 157 - Berry v. State

882 So. 2d 157 - Berry v. State’s Empirical Analysis

2004

Citation profile

24
cited by 24 later decisions
1
cited 1 times by the Supreme Court
3
states following
May 2022
most recently cited

1 federal appellate · 18 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 24 later decisions (1 by the Supreme Court) — most recently May 2022

1 federal appellate · 18 state decisions

180200420102020decided

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 Strickland v. Washington · Brady v. State of Maryland · Apprendi v. New Jersey · Batson v. Kentucky · United States v. Bagley

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 24 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. “Mississippi's capital scheme is distinct from Arizona's in the single, most relevant respect under the Ring holding: that it is the jury which determines the presence of aggravating circumstances necessary for the imposition of the death sentence. See Miss.Code Ann. § 99-19-101 (2000). Likewise, the Ring court considered Mississippi's scheme to be part of a majority of states who have responded to its Eighth Amendment decisions and require that juries make the final determination as to the presence of aggravating circumstances. Ring, 536 U.S. at 608 , 122 S.Ct. 2428 n. 6 .”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage
  2. “Once a deficient performance is shown, a `defendant must show that there is a reasonable probability that, but for counsel's unprofessional errors, the result of the proceeding would have been different. A reasonable probability is a probability sufficient to undermine confidence in the outcome.'”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage
  3. “so undermined the proper functioning of the adversarial process that the trial cannot be relied on as having produced a just result.”
    2 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.