Noland v. Hurley’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

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 3 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “After the Ohio Supreme Court’s decision in State v. Foster, sentencing judges are free to impose any sentence within the applicable statutory range without the need to make any specific judicial findings .... Stated otherwise, because Ohio remedied its unconstitutional sentencing regime by making its guidelines advisory, there is no reason to believe the Petitioner would receive a more favorable sentence if the Court grants his habeas request for relief. In light of the fact that the Supreme Court has held that Blakely violations are not “structural” errors that require automatic reversal, we therefore agree with Respondent that no basis exists for granting the Petitioner’s request for relief despite the fact that his re-sentencing clearly did violate Blakely.”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Cvijetinovic v. Eberlin · Smith v. Petkovich