Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 280 F.3d 949 - Pizzuto v. Arave

Pizzuto v. Arave’s Empirical Analysis

280 F.3d 949 · 2002

Citation profile

43
cited by 43 later decisions
1
states following
March 2020
most recently cited

31 federal appellate · 2 district · 1 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 43 later decisions — most recently March 2020 · most notably Robinson v. Ignacio (2004), Leavitt v. Arave (2004)

31 federal appellate · 2 district · 1 state decisions

300200220102020decided

Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.

Relationships

Relies on Strickland v. Washington · Slack v. McDaniel · Apprendi v. New Jersey · Williams v. Taylor · Brecht v. Abrahamson

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

  1. “Judge Reinhardt found five statutory aggravating circumstances beyond a reasonable doubt: (1) at the time Pizzuto murdered Delbert Herndon, he also murdered Berta Herndon; (2) the murders were especially heinous, atrocious, cruel and manifested exceptional depravity; (3) by the murders and circumstances surrounding their commission, Pizzuto exhibited utter disregard for human life; (4) the murders were accompanied with the specific intent to cause the two deaths; and (5) by prior conduct and by conduct in the murders in this case, Pizzuto had exhibited a propensity to commit murder which will probably constitute a continuing threat to society.”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “Pizzuto does not show how [Chenoweth’s personal relationship with Judge Reinhardt] amounts to an actual conflict of interest such that counsel would not have challenged Judge Reinhardt’s behavior. See Cuyler v. Sullivan, 446 U.S. 335 , 345-50 [ 100 S.Ct. 1708 , 64 L.Ed.2d 333 ] (1980); see also Barnhill v. Flannigan, 42 F.3d 1074 , 1077-78 (7th Cir.1994) (noting the general rule that an attorney’s actual conflict can be sufficient cause to excuse a procedural default, but holding no actual conflict shown by allegation that public defender on appeal refrained from raising ineffectiveness of trial counsel who was also a public defender). In fact, [Chenoweth] moved for a new trial and to disqualify Judge Reinhardt from participating in further proceedings based on a charge of judicial misconduct, and challenged Judge Reinhardt’s lack of partiality during the sentencing phase in Pizzuto’s amended first petition for post-conviction relief. If [Chenoweth] had truly been conflicted, [he] would not have taken either step. As we cannot presume that a conflict exists where none is demonstrated, see Cuyler, 446 U.S. at 347-48 [ 100 S.Ct. 1708 ], Pizzuto has failed to establish cause.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “in that he had pushed her head into a wall, drowned her cats and their puppy (who Pizzuto then hung from the shower stall), pushed her down the stairs when she was six-and-a-half months pregnant, pointed a gun at her head and played roulette, described himself”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority

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.