330 F. Supp. 2d 603 - Lovitt v. True’s Empirical Analysis
2004
Citation profile
2 federal appellate ·
Relationships
Applies 18 U.S.C. § 2254 · 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996)
Relies on Strickland v. Washington · Brady v. State of Maryland · Williams v. Taylor · United States v. Bagley · Coleman v. Thompson
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 2 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“to require a prosecutor to mine the records of every surrounding jurisdiction in both the Commonwealth of Virginia and the District of Columbia, absent some specific information triggering such an inquiry, would be patently unreasonable.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Lovitt v. True“[A]s both the circuit court and the Supreme Court of Virginia found, prior to trial, Lovitt's attorney ... had access to Dr. Pierre-Louis and could have asked her to compare the victim's wounds to the various pairs of scissors.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Lovitt v. True“where the exculpatory information is not only available to the defendant but also lies in a source where a reasonable defendant would have looked, a defendant is not entitled to the benefit of the Brady doctrine.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Lovitt v. True
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.