Rouse v. Rc Lee’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

2 federal appellate ·

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

1. “Rouse ... contends that his motion for appropriate relief remained pending for twenty days after certiorari was denied, ... because North Carolina procedural rules state that an appellate mandate should issue twenty days after an opinion .... Rouse claims that the mandate did not issue on the Supreme Court’s denial of certiorari in his case until February 25 — but he has submitted no evidence that any mandate ever issued in his case.... We agree with Rouse that the inapplicability of Rule 32(b) is less than clear .... In the absence of evidence that a mandate issued in Rouse’s case, however, ... Rouse has not shown that Rule 32(b) extended the period in which his post-conviction motion was “pending” in state court.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 247 F. Supp. 2d 805 - Marrow v. Harkleroad

2. “An application for a writ of habeas corpus on behalf of a person in custody pursuant to the judgment of a State court shall not be granted with respect to any claim that was adjudicated on the merits in State court proceedings unless the adjudication of the claim - (1) resulted in a decision that was contrary to, or involved an unreasonable application of, clearly established Federal law, as determined by the Supreme Court of the United States; or (2) resulted in a decision that was based on an unreasonable determination of the facts in light of the evi dence presented in the State court proceeding.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the dissent
   e.g. 247 F. Supp. 2d 805 - Marrow v. Harkleroad

3. “Shafer v. South Carolina, 532 U.S. 36 , 55, 121 S.Ct. 1263, 149 L.Ed.2d 178 (2001) (Scalia, J., dissenting); see Simmons v. South Carolina, 512 U.S. 154 , 178-79, 114 S.Ct. 2187, 129 L.Ed.2d 133 (1994) (Scalia, J., joined by Thomas, J., dissenting), and it would not alter the”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the concurrence
   e.g. Kenneth Bernard Rouse v. R.C. Lee, Warden, Central Prison, Raleigh, North Carolina