Already have an account? Sign in instead.
You stay signed in for 30 days on this browser.
Continue with Google Continue with MicrosoftNo account yet? Create a free one.
We sent a six-digit code.
It expires in ten minutes, works once, and only in this browser. Five wrong tries void it. Send another code.
Your account is live and the Cloudflare checks are off for this browser.
5 canonical passages across 2 cases, quoted by 18 opinions in total. These passages cluster together because the same opinions keep quoting them side by side: they state parts of one doctrine. The anchor passage is from State v. Wallace.
| # | Case | Flag | Canonical passage | Citers |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | State v. Wallace Anchor | green | “a difficult family background is a relevant mitigating circumstance if a defendant can show that something in that background had an effect or impact on his behavior that was beyond the defendant's control.” | 8 |
| 2 | Charles Hedlund v. Charles Ryan | green | “applied the prohibited causal nexus test, hedlund has not yet received the constitutionally-required review that he is due.” | 3 |
| 3 | Charles Hedlund v. Charles Ryan | green | “this refusal to consider and give effect to significant mitigating evidence that the court found credible because it was not tied to hedlund's behavior in committing the crime is contrary to eddings.” | 3 |
| 4 | State v. Wallace | green | “a defendant can show that something in that background had an effect or impact on his behavior that was beyond the defendant's control.” | 2 |
| 5 | State v. Wallace | green | “a difficult family background is not a relevant mitigating circumstance unless 'a defendant can show that something in that background had an effect or impact on his behavior that was beyond the defendant's control.” | 2 |
A red or yellow flag on a member means the underlying case has negative treatment: for those, check the case page before relying on the passage.