Nulph v. Cook’s Empirical Analysis
333 F.3d 1052 · 2003
Citation profile
14 federal appellate · 6 district · 1 state decisions
Relationships
Applies 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996)
Relies on Apprendi v. New Jersey · North Carolina v. Pearce · Lindh v. Murphy · Bordenkircher v. Hayes · United States v. Goodwin
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.
“We have held that no reasonable likelihood of vindictiveness exists unless there is some “triggering event,” such as a reversal and remand. Bono v. Benov, 197 F.3d 409 , 417-18 (9th Cir.1999). When the Pearce presumption applies, it is rebutted only by “objective information concerning identifiable conduct on the part of the defendant occurring after the time of the original sentencing proceeding.” 395 U.S. at 726 , 89 S.Ct. 2072 , 23 L.Ed.2d 656 ; see also Wasman v. United States, 468 U.S. 559 , 565, 104 S.Ct. 3217 , 82 L.Ed.2d 424 (1984) (holding that the reasons must be based on “objective information in the record justifying the increased sentence”). The State bears the burden of rebutting the presumption. Wasman, 468 U.S. at 569 , 104 S.Ct. 3217 , 82 L.Ed.2d 424 . If it fails to do so, we may vacate the sentence and grant habeas relief. See Pearce, 395 U.S. at 726 , 89 S.Ct. 2072 , 23 L.Ed.2d 656 .”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“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[.]”
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.