Ex Parte Hood’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

8 federal appellate · 10 state decisions

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.

1. “If a subsequent application for a writ of habeas corpus is filed after filing an initial application, a court may not consider the merits of or grant relief based on the subsequent application unless the application contains sufficient specific facts establishing that: (1) the current claims and issues have not been and could not have been presented previously in a timely initial application or in a previously considered application filed under this article or Article 11.07 because the factual or legal basis for the claim was unavailable on the date the applicant filed the previous application^]”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Ex Parte Hood · Ex Parte Campbell

2. “Applicant was excused from presenting a Penry-tjpe claim in his first application because we held on his direct appeal that the nullification instruction was adequate. That holding was sufficient to defeat a claim for relief, and binding precedent suggesting the incorrectness of that holding (i.e. Penry II) did not yet exist. But applicant was not excused from presenting this claim in his second application because it was filed after Penry II, which afforded a new basis to challenge our previous holding. Smith II did not supply a previously unavailable legal basis for challenging our original nullification holding because that basis had already been supplied by Penry II, and, even though applicant had the opportunity to litigate Penry II in his second application, he did not do so and thus received no adverse ruling from this Court holding Penry II inapplicable.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Ex Parte Hood

3. “Penry I afforded a legal basis for contending that the defendant’s mitigating evidence was constitutionally relevant to determining whether he should receive the death penalty.”). 112 . 501 U.S. 722 , 735, 111 S.Ct. 2546 , 115 L.Ed.2d 640 (1991) (”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Rocha v. Thaler