Rauf v. State’s Empirical Analysis
2016
Citation profile
1 federal appellate · 17 state decisions
Relationships
Applies 18 U.S.C. § 3551 (Mandatory Victims Restitution Act of 1996) · 18 U.S.C. § 924
Relies on Strickland v. Washington · Apprendi v. New Jersey · Illinois v. Gates · Blakely v. Washington · Williams v. Taylor
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 19 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“If any provision of this Code or amendments hereto, or the application thereof to any person, thing or circumstances is held invalid, such invalidity shall not affect the provisions or application of this Code or such amendments that can be given effect without the invalid provisions or application, and to this end the provisions of this Code and such amendments are declared to be severable. 10”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the concurrencee.g. State v. Swan“[i]f any procedure in 11 Del C. § 4209's capital sentencing scheme does not comport with federal constitutional standards, can the provision for such be severed from the remainder of 11 Del. C. § 4209, and the Court proceed with instructions to the jury that comport with federal constitutional standards?”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the dissente.g. Zebroski v. State“the finding that the aggravating factors outweigh the mitigating circumstances”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the dissente.g. Underwood v. Royal
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.