Cooey v. Strickland’s Empirical Analysis
588 F.3d 921 · 2009
Citation profile
7 federal appellate · 2 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 14 later decisions — most recently May 2025
7 federal appellate · 2 state decisions
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
Applies 28 U.S.C. § 1292
Relies on Powell v. McCormack · County of Los Angeles v. Davis · Carson v. American Brands, Inc. · Gulfstream Aerospace Corp. v. Mayacamas Corp. · Baze v. Rees
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 14 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“Biros rejoins that Ohio has not met its “heavy” burden of showing that this voluntary change in procedure has defeated any “ ‘reasonable expectation ... ’ that the alleged violation will recur.” Los Angeles County v. Davis, 440 U.S. 625, 631 , 99 S.Ct. 1379 , 59 L.Ed.2d 642 (1979). Biros suggests that “there is no assurance that defendants will not revert to [the three-drug procedure] whenever they want to do so.” Biros Reply Br. at 14. As an initial matter, it is by no means clear that the prior procedure was unconstitutional, and it thus is by no means clear that a “rever[sionj” will lead to “recur[ring]” constitutional violations. See Baze, 128 S.Ct. at 1537 . Be that as it may, the question at hand is whether Ohio will use the old procedure, or the new one, in executing Biros. There is no basis in the record or for that matter in common sense for assuming that the State will do anything other than what it has told us in court filings and what it has told the public at large: it has changed its • execution protocol, and it intends to apply the substantially modified protocol to Biros. Both of the key changes to the protocol, it bears adding, grew out of—and were direct responses to—the underlying litigation of which Biros was a part. Under these circumstances, we see no reasonable basis for refusing to take the State at its word.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“As to the merits, the district court’s stay order must be vacated because any challenge to Ohio’s three-drug execution protocol is now moot. Since Biros filed his lawsuit, the State has amended' its lethal injection protocol. As noted, it now has a single-drug intravenous procedure and uses a two-drug intramuscular procedure as a back-up if it cannot access the veins of the individual.”
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.