Bowling v. Commonwealth’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

4 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 4 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““Thus, at the time of his trial Kentucky had in effect a statute that prohibited the execution of an offender under the age of sixteen. As such, Bowling’s claim that execution is prohibited because he functions at the level of an eleven-year-old child could have been asserted at trial, in his RCr 11.42 motion, or his prior CR 60.02 motion.... For this reason, the same rationale espoused in [.Bowling IV] that supported a finding that Bowling procedurally defaulted his mental retardation claim applies with equal force to support a finding that his current claim, even if viable, would have been procedurally defaulted as well.””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Bowling v. Commonwealth

2. “[the age of 18 is the point where society draws the line for many purposes between childhood and adulthood. It is, we conclude, the age at which the line for death eligibility ought to rest.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Mitchell v. State

3. “tlhe plain language of Roper compels the conclusion that its prohibition is limited to 'the execution of an offender for any crime committed before his 18th birthday... .'”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Mitchell v. State