Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 888 SW2D 816 - Mines v. State

Mines v. State’s Empirical Analysis

1994

Citation profile

5
cited by 5 later decisions
2
cited 2 times by the Supreme Court
1
states following
February 2008
most recently cited

1 state decisions

Relationships

Relies on Penry v. Lynaugh · Jurek v. Texas · Edwards v. South Carolina · Nantahala Power & Light Co. v. Thornburg · Payless Wholesale Distributor, Inc. v. Albert Culver (P.R.) Inc.

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

  1. “The Supreme Court's holdings in Penry, Graham and Johnson do not provide an analytical framework to determine when our capital sentencing scheme fails to allow the jury to consider and give effect to mitigating evidence . . .”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the concurrence

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.