State v. Killian’s Empirical Analysis
1962
Citation profile
6 federal appellate · 35 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 41 later decisions — most recently September 2003 · most notably United States v. Martell (1964), State v. Kunz (1969)
6 federal appellate · 35 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 State v. Smith · State v. Fenton · State v. Castano · State of Arizona v. Levice · State v. Moody
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 41 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““Upon an appeal from the judgment or from the sentence on the ground that it is excessive, the court shall have the power to reduce the extent or duration of the punishment imposed, if, in its opinion, the conviction is proper, but the punishment imposed is greater than under the circumstances of the case ought to be inflicted. -In such a case, the supreme court shall- impose any legal sentence, not more severe than that originally imposed, which in its opinion is proper. Such sentence shall be enforced by the court from which the appeal was taken.””
2 later decisions quote this exact passagee.g. State v. DePiano · State v. Cortez““ * * * it is a cardinal principle that the penalty upon conviction of a crime is, within the limits of statute, entirely within the sound discretion of the trial judge, and will not be modified unless it clearly appears that the sentence imposed is excessive, resulting in an abuse of discretion. State v. Moody, 67 Ariz. 74 , 190 P.2d 920 ; Chee v. State, 65 Ariz. 147 , 176 P.2d 366 . “Where a discretion is vested in the trial judge as to the limits of the sentence, he should consider not only the circumstances of the offense charged but also the moral character and past conduct of the defendant himself in order that he may grade the punishment in accordance with the general character of both the offense and of the party convicted. State v. Fenton, 86 Ariz. 111, 119 , 341 P.2d 237 ; State v. Smith, 66 Ariz. 376 , 189 P.2d 205 ; State v. Levice, 59 Ariz. 472 , 130 P.2d 53 .” 89 Ariz. at 233 , 360 P.2d at 480 .”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. State v. Morris
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.