Bell v. Ozmint’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

12 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 25 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “resulted in a decision that was based on an unreasonable determination of the facts in light of the evidence presented in the State court proceeding.”

   7 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Tucker v. Ozmint · Appleby v. Warden

2. “It is true that, with regard to opinions and orders rendered by the district courts within this circuit, “[t]he adoption of one party’s proposed findings and conclusions is a practice with which [the Circuit] ha[s] expressed disapproval on a number of occasions.” Nonetheless, the disposition of a petitioner’s constitutional claims in such a manner is unquestionably an “adjudication” by the state court. If that court addresses the mer its of the petitioner’s claim, then § 2254(d) must be applied.”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Longworth v. Ozmint · 454 F. Supp. 2d 475 - Call v. Polk

3. “Bell contends that the district court erred in choosing to apply § 2254(d)’s deferential standard of review, and that “this case must be remanded to the district court for a de novo review of the facts and law with respect to every claim for relief.” Bell bases his claim on the fact that the state PCR court, after receiving post-hearing briefs, invited proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law from both parties; it received none from Bell and largely adopted the State’s proposed memorandum and order .... Although we do not applaud this practice, circuit precedent dictates that it does not provide any basis for applying de novo review. Indeed, we recently-rejected precisely this claim by Kevin Young, one of Bell’s co-perpetrators. See Young v. Catoe, 205 F.3d 750 , 755 n. 2 (4th Cir.2000).”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Longworth v. Ozmint