David Gary v. Dave Dormire’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

7 federal appellate · 1 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 9 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “Missouri treats voluntarily intoxicated individuals and sober individuals equally culpable for criminal activity. It accomplishes this by giving evidence of voluntary intoxication no relevance insofar as the mental elements of the crime are concerned. Because evidence of voluntary intoxication has no exculpatory relevance under Missouri law, a criminal defendant has no corresponding constitutional right to have the jury consider this evidence.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the dissent
   e.g. Owsley v. Luebbers

2. “[w]e need not determine whether the district court applied the appropriate standard of review.... [because] petitioner has not demonstrated that he is entitled to habeas relief under either § 2254(d) or under the more liberal pre-AEDPA standard of review.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the dissent
   e.g. Robinson v. Crist

3. “contrary to, or involved an unreasonable application of, clearly established Federal law, as determined by the Supreme Court of the United States,”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Robinson v. Crist