Rivera v. Quarterman’s Empirical Analysis
505 F.3d 349 · 2007
Citation profile
36 federal appellate · 4 state decisions
Relationships
Applies 28 U.S.C. § 2244 (Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996) · 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996)
Relies on Coleman v. Thompson · Ake v. Oklahoma · Harris v. Reed · Atkins v. Virginia · Ford v. Wainwright
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 58 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“Even though Atkins did not specifically mandate any set of procedures, it was decided against the backdrop of the Supreme Court’s and lower court’s due process jurisprudence. The lesson we draw from Panetti is that, where a petitioner has made a prima facie showing of retardation as Rivera did, the state court’s failure to provide him with the opportunity to develop his claim deprives the state comi’s decision of the deference normally due.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“[I]t was unreasonable ... to reject Rivera's Atkins claim as failing to even establish a prima facie case-especially when viewed through the prism of Atkins ' command that the Constitution places a substantive restriction on the State's power to take the life of a mentally retarded offender.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Blue v. Thaler · Smith v. Sharp“As the CCA has noted, the adaptive behavior criteria are "exceedingly subjective.” The district courts each held extensive evidential hearings, which included testimony on this issue from, among other witnesses, [the petitioner’s] family members and teachers, and multiple experts. That this case presents, in Judge Hanen’s words, “a close call” strengthens the need to be mindful of the district court’s conclusions. Judge Hanen, having actually presided over the second evidentiary hearing, is in a better position than this court to judge and weigh the credibility of the witnesses who testified on the extent, duration, and causes of [the petitioner’s] adaptive functioning limitations.”
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.