Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 436 F.3d 951 - Rousan v. Roper

Rousan v. Roper’s Empirical Analysis

436 F.3d 951 · 2006

Citation profile

25
cited by 25 later decisions
December 2020
most recently cited

14 federal appellate · 3 district ·

How this case has been cited

Cited by 25 later decisions — most recently December 2020 · most notably Middleton v. Roper (2006), Garcia v. Bertsch (2006)

14 federal appellate · 3 district ·

140200620102020decided

Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.

Relationships

Relies on Strickland v. Washington · Jackson v. Virginia · Williams v. Taylor · Estelle v. McGuire · Wainwright v. Witt

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. “You will be provided with forms of verdict for your convenience. You cannot return any verdict imposing a sentence of death unless all twelve jurors concur in and agree to it, but any such verdict should be signed by your foreperson alone. As to Count I, if, you unanimously decide, after considering all of the evidence and instructions of law given to you, that the defendant must be put to death for the murder of Anthony Curtis, your foreperson must write into your verdict all of the statutory aggravating circumstances submitted in Instruction No. 18 which you found beyond a reasonable doubt, and sign the verdict form so fixing the punishment. If you unanimously decide, after considering all of the evidence and instructions of law, that the defendant must be punished for the murder of Anthony Curtis by imprisonment for life by the Department of Corrections without eligibility for probation or parole, your foreperson will sign the verdict form so fixing the punishment. If you are unable to unanimously find the existence of at least one statutory aggravating circumstance beyond a reasonable doubt, as submitted in Instruction No. 18, or if you are unable to unanimously find that there are facts and circumstances in aggravation of punishment which warrant the imposition of a sentence of death, as submitted in Instruction No. 19, then your foreperson must sign the verdict form fixing the punishment at imprisonment for life by the Department of Corrections without eligibility for p”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “`[I]t is not enough for us to conclude that, in our independent judgment, we would have applied federal law differently from the state court; the state court's application must have been objectively unreasonable.'”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “only to determine whether an alleged error infringes upon a specific constitutional protection or is so prejudicial as to be a denial of due process.”
    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.