Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 975 F.2d 444 - Mathenia v. Delo

Mathenia v. Delo’s Empirical Analysis

975 F.2d 444 · 1992

Citation profile

34
cited by 34 later decisions
2
states following
August 2019
most recently cited

26 federal appellate · 3 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 34 later decisions — most recently August 2019 · most notably Brecheen v. Reynolds (1994), Sidebottom v. Delo (1995)

26 federal appellate · 3 state decisions

270199220002010decided

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

Applies 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996)

Relies on Strickland v. Washington · Miranda v. State of Arizona Vignera · Gregg v. Georgia · Doyle v. Ohio · Furman v. Georgia

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

  1. “The trier shall assess and declare the punishment at life imprisonment without eligibility for probation, parole, or release except by act of the governor: (1) If the trier does not find beyond a reasonable doubt at least one of the statutory aggravating circumstances set out in subsection 2 of section 565.032; or (4) If the trier decides under all of the circumstances not to assess and declare the punishment at death.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  2. “[e]ven if a jury does not make specific findings that the murder involved torture, a finding by the state court of evidence that the victim had a substantial period of time before death to anticipate and reflect on it is a proper limiting construction of the aggravating circumstance instruction.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “a state supreme court may salvage a facially-vague statute by construing it to provide the sentencing body with objective criteria for applying the statute.”
    1 later decision 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.