Moore v. Kinney’s Empirical Analysis
278 F.3d 774 · 2002
Citation profile
4
cited by 4 later decisions
July 2008
most recently cited
1 district ·
Relationships
Relies on Gregg v. Georgia · Furman v. Georgia · Proffitt v. Florida · Local 408, International Brotherhood of Teamsters v. National Labor Relations Board · Maynard v. Cartwright
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.
“Id. The supreme court did not explain why the state district court could narrow the definition of exceptional depravity when it believed that it itself should not, nor did it provide guidance to the sentencing panel for the application of the constitutionally defunct exceptional depravity aggravating factor. 16 At resentencing, the state district court evaluated its instructions from the state supreme court, and identified three options: 17 inasmuch as the federal Circuit Court of Appeals has determined that the present definition of”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“Aggravating Circumstance in Death Penalty Cases, 17 Stetson L. Rev. 47, 52, 60-61 (1987). Florida still uses this statutory rule, without published disagreement from the Supreme Court, and the Florida Supreme Court has held this aggravator is constitutional. Fennie v. State, 648 So.2d 95, 98 (Fla. 1994), cert. denied, 513 U.S. 1159 (1995). 3 53 As this dissent will discuss, infra, the 1980 sentencing panel was on firm constitutional ground when it found”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the dissent“circumstance in death penalty litigation. I can find no instance in which the Supreme Court has found use of this circumstance unconstitutional because of vagueness. See, e.g., Fla. Stat. Ann. § 921.141(5)(i) (West 2001) (Florida statutory aggravator); 720 Ill. Comp. Stat. 5/9-1(b)(11) (2001) (Illinois statutory aggravator); Angleton v. State, 714 N.E.2d 156, 160 (Ind. 1999) (court held that finding of”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the dissent
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.