Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 909 P.2d 92 - Romano v. State

Romano v. State’s Empirical Analysis

1995

Citation profile

91
cited by 91 later decisions
4
states following
February 2026
most recently cited

20 federal appellate · 69 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 91 later decisions — most recently February 2026 · most notably John Joseph Romano v. Gary Gibson Warden of the Oklahoma State Penitentiary (2001), 2006 OK CR 19 - Hogan v. State (2006)

20 federal appellate · 69 state decisions

4701995200020102020decided

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 Chapman v. State of California · Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc. · Rakas v. Illinois · Gregg v. Georgia · Doyle v. Ohio

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

  1. “[T]his Court has limited this aggravating circumstance to cases in which the State proves beyond a reasonable doubt that the murder of the victim was preceded by torture or serious physical abuse, which may include the infliction of either great physical anguish or extreme mental cruelty. " Absent evidence of conscious physical suffering of the victim prior to death, the required torture or serious physical abuse standard is not met. " As to the extreme mental cruelty prong of this aggravating circumstance, "torture creating extreme mental distress must be the result of intentional acts by the defendant. The torture must produce mental anguish in addition to that which of necessity accompanies the underlying killing. Analysis must focus on the acts of the defendant toward the victim and the level of tension created." (citations omitted.)”
    4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “[i]n post-arrest situations where Miranda warnings have not yet been given, a defendant's voluntary statements, not made in response to questioning, are admissible.”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “[w]here a defendant makes a specific objection at trial no different objections will be considered on appeal.”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority

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.