Stephen Michael West v. Derrick D. Schofield’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

1 federal appellate · 15 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 18 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “- The applicable standard of review for pretrial discovery decisions is abuse of discretion. Benton v. Snyder, 825 S.W.2d 409, 416 (Tenn.1992). An abuse of discretion occurs when the trial court applies incorrect legal standards, reaches an illogical conclusion, bases its decision on a clearly erroneous assessment of the evidence, or employs reasoning that causes an injustice to the complaining-party. State v. Banks, 271 S.W.3d 90,116 (Tenn.2008).”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Paul J. Walwyn v. Board of Professional Responsibility Of The Supreme Court of Tennessee · State of Tennessee v. Jonathan David Patterson

2. “In any proceedings on remand, the standards enunciated in the plurality opinion in Baze v. Rees, 553 U.S. 35, 51 , 128 S.Ct. 1520 , 170 L.Ed.2d 420 (2008) apply. The burden is on Mr. West to prove that the revised protocol creates an “objectively intolerable risk of harm that qualifies as cruel and unusual.” Baze v. Rees, 553 U.S. at 52 , 128 S.Ct. 1520 . In order to carry this heavy burden, he must demonstrate that the re vised protocol imposes a substantial risk of serious harm, and he must either propose an alternative method of execution that is feasible, readily implemented, and which significantly reduces the substantial risk of severe pain, Baze v. Rees, 553 U.S. at 52-53 , 128 S.Ct. 1520 , or demonstrate that no lethal injection protocol can significantly reduce the substantial risk of severe pain.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the dissent
   e.g. Stephen Michael West v. Derrick D. Schofield

3. “[A] declaratory judgment action cannot be used by a court to decide a theoretical question, render an advisory opinion which may help a party in another transaction, or allay fears as to what may occur in the future[.] Thus, in order to maintain an action for a declaratory judgment^] a justiciable controversy must exist. For a controversy to be justiciable, a real question rather than a theoretical one must be presented and a legally protectable interest must be at stake. If the controversy depends upon a future or contingent event, or involves a theoretical or hypothetical state of facts, the controversy is not justiciable. If the rule were otherwise, the courts might well be projected into the limitless field of advisory opinions.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Stephen Michael West v. Derrick D. Schofield