State v. Bigbee’s Empirical Analysis
1994
Citation profile
3 federal appellate · 85 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 92 later decisions — most recently January 2019 · most notably State v. Hall (1997), State v. Nesbit (1998)
3 federal appellate · 85 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 Gregg v. Georgia · Furman v. Georgia · Lockett v. Ohio · Michigan v. Long · Eddings v. Oklahoma
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 92 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“The murder was committed while the defendant was engaged in committing, or was an accomplice in the commission of, or was attempting to commit, or was fleeing after committing or attempting to commit, any first degree murder, arson, rape, robbery, burglary, theft, kidnaping, aircraft piracy, or unlawful throwing, placing or discharging of a destructive device or bomb.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the concurrencee.g. Hartman v. State · State v. Harris“Similarly, we hold that the reckless disregard for human life explicit in know ingly engaging in criminal activities' known to carry a grave risk of death represents a high culpable mental state, a mental state that may be taken into account in making a capital sentencing judgment when that conduct causes its natural, though also not inevitable, lethal result. [[Image here]] Rather, we simply hold that major participation in the felony committed, combined with reckless indifference to human life, is sufficient to satisfy the Enmund culpability requirement.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the concurrencee.g. State v. Howell“11. The death penalty statutes prohibit the jury from being informed of the consequences of its failure to reach a unanimous verdict in the penalty phase in violation of the Fifth, Sixth, Eighth, and Fourteenth Amendments of the United States Constitution and Article I, Sections 8, 9, 10, and 16 of the Tennessee Constitution.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the concurrencee.g. State v. Thacker
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.