371 F. App'x 575 - Smith v. Morgan’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

1 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 3 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “Smith applied to the Tennessee Supreme Court for permission to appeal, again challenging the validity of Tenn. Code Ann. § 39-17-432 under both the State and federal constitutions. The court denied the application, however, and Smith, then acting pro se, timely petitioned the state trial court for post-conviction relief. In his post-conviction petition, Smith raised numerous issues, including ... that [his] sentence was disproportionate to comparable crimes.... After a hearing, the court issued a brief order, granting Smith a new trial on the basis of the trial judge’s failure to provide the jury with all jury charges in written form and failure to fully explain the law pursuant to a jury question request. The state appealed the trial court’s grant of post-conviction relief to the [TCCA]. That court reversed the order, holding that the jury charge issue had been waived by the failure to pursue the objection at trial and preserve the issue for the direct appeal. Smith v. State, No. M2002-02181-CCA-R3-CD, 2003 WL 21946727 , at (Tenn.Crim. App. Aug. 12, 2003). Still acting pro se, Smith followed that intermediate court decision with another application for permission to appeal to the state supreme court.... The Tennessee Supreme Court denied permission to appeal, effectively foreclosing the possibility of Smith’s securing relief from the Tennessee state courts.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 509 F. App'x 476 - Thomas Smith v. John Howerton