In re Schwab’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

1 federal appellate · 2 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 5 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “Even if [a claim challenging the constitutionality of Florida's lethal injection protocols] were properly cognizable in an initial federal habeas petition, instead of in a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 proceeding, see generally Hill v. McDonough, 547 U.S. 573 , 126 S.Ct. 2096, 2099 , 165 L.Ed.2d 44 (2006); Nelson v. Campbell, 541 U.S. 637 , 124 S.Ct. 2117 , 158 L.Ed.2d 924 (2004), Rutherford v. McDonough, 466 F.3d 970, 973 (11th Cir.2006) (observing that pre-Nelson circuit law requiring challenges to lethal injection procedures to be brought in a § 2254 proceeding is "no longer valid in light of the Supreme Court's Hill decision"), this claim cannot serve as a proper basis for a second or successive habeas petition. It cannot because it neither relies on a new rule of constitutional law made retroactive to cases on collateral review by the Supreme Court, 28 U.S.C. § 2244 (b)(2)(A), nor involves facts relating to guilt or innocence, see 28 U.S.C. § 2244 (b)(2)(B)(ii).”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 992 So. 2d 120 - Henyard v. State