Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 922 F.2d 633 - Booker v. Dugger

Booker v. Dugger’s Empirical Analysis

922 F.2d 633 · 1991

Citation profile

23
cited by 23 later decisions
2
states following
October 2019
most recently cited

9 federal appellate · 3 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 23 later decisions — most recently October 2019

9 federal appellate · 3 state decisions

170199120002010decided

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 · Wainwright v. Sykes · Lockett v. Ohio · Zant v. Stephens · Enmund v. Florida

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

  1. “Federal courts are not ... bound by state court rulings on harmless error.”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the concurrence
  2. “involves comparing the balance between aggravating and mitigating circumstances in the case at hand with the balance in other cases (not considered by the jury in recommending, or the trial judge in fashioning, the sentence to be given) in which the death penalty has been imposed.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the concurrence
  3. “stands for the proposition that state appellate courts in weighing states may independently weigh aggravating and mitigating circumstances and thereby cure certain errors that might have occurred at the sentencing phase of a trial; they may act as sentencers.”
    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.