Clark v. Johnson’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

12 federal appellate · 2 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 30 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “[O]nce federally funded counsel is appointed to represent a state prisoner in § 2254 proceedings, she “shall also represent the defendant in such ... proceedings for executive or other clemency as may be available to that defendant.” § 3599(e). Because state clemency proceedings are “available” to state petitioners who obtain representation pursuant to subsection (a)(2), the statutory language indicates that appointed counsel’s authorized representation includes such proceedings.”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. House v. Bell · Rosales v. Quarterman

2. “The [district court’s] order fully and finally disposes of [counsel’s] request for reimbursement, an issue that is separate from the merits of the federal habeas corpus proceeding. The district court necessarily interpreted the meaning of “proceedings for executive or other clemency” under § 848(q)(8) to exclude state clemency proceedings. Such a decision is qualitatively different from approving or disapproving the amount of expenses reasonably and necessarily incurred by counsel as it definitively determines whether such services are compensable under the Act as a matter of law.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Gary v. Warden, Georgia Diagnostic Prison

3. “[w]e cannot agree that ... subsection 848(q)(8), encompass[es] ... any proceedings convened under the authority of a State.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. King v. Moore