Lovitt v. True’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

10 federal appellate · 6 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 32 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “credit [counsel's] plausible strategic judgments,”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 987 So. 2d 1186 - Waldrop v. State · Emmett v. Kelly

2. “Where the state court has adjudicated a particular claim on the merits, federal habeas relief is appropriate only in two circumstances. The first occurs if the state court’s judgment “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.” 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (d)(1). A decision is “contrary to” clearly established Supreme Court precedent if “the state court applies a rule that contradicts the governing law set forth ha [the Supreme Court’s] cases” or “confronts a”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Tate v. True

3. “`"Trial counsel is too frequently placed in a no-win situation with respect to possible mitigating evidence at the sentencing phase of a capital case.' Bunch [v. Thompson] , 949 F.2d [1354 ] 1364 [(4th Cir. 1991)]. Therefore, `[t]he best course for a federal habeas court is to credit plausible strategic judgments.' Id. See also Truesdale v. Moore , 142 F.3d 749 , 754-55 (4th Cir. 1998). To do otherwise would be a transparent misuse of the habeas court's power of hind-sight."”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 987 So. 2d 1186 - Waldrop v. State