Rompilla v. Horn’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

23 federal appellate · 19 district · 9 state decisions

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

1. “A matter is “adjudicated on the merits” if there is a “decision finally resolving the parties’ claims, with res judicata effect, that is based on the substance of the claim advanced, rather than on a procedural, or other, ground.” ... [Section] 2254(d) applies regardless of the procedures employed or the decision reached by the state court, as long as a substantive decision was reached; the adequacy of the procedures and of the decision are addressed through the lens of § 2254(d), not as a threshold matter.”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Boyd v. Warden · Boyd v. Waymart

2. “Rompilla’s parents were both severe alcoholics who drank constantly. His mother drank during her pregnancy with Rompilla, and he and his brothers eventually developed serious drinking problems. His father, who had a vicious temper, frequently beat Rompilla’s mother, leaving her bruised and black-eyed, and bragged about his cheating on her. His parents fought violently, and on at least one occasion his mother stabbed his father. He was abused by his father who beat him when he was young with his hands, fists, leather straps, belts and sticks. All of the children lived in terror .... His father locked Rompilla and his brother Richard in a small wire mesh dog pen that was filthy and excrement filled. He had an isolated background, and was not allowed to visit other children or to speak to anyone on the phone. They had no indoor plumbing in the house, he slept in the attic with no heat, and the children were not given clothes and attended school in rags.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the dissent
   e.g. Borden v. Allen

3. “the Pennsylvania Supreme Court has explicitly held that the state standard is ‘the same' as Strickland's and that Pennsylvania law does not provide 'any greater or lesser protection than the Sixth Amendment.’ ” 355 F.3d 233, 248 (3d Cir.2004) (citing Commonwealth v. Pierce, 515 Pa. 153 , 527 A.2d 973, 976-77 (1987)). The Third Circuit further referred to the difference between the two tests as an”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 326 F. Supp. 2d 612 - Veal v. Myers