Goodloe v. Parratt’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

30 federal appellate · 1 district · 12 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 52 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “free to roam at large to shift its theory of criminality so as to take advantage of each passing vicissitude of the trial and appeal.”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Gray v. Raines · Gray v. Raines

2. ““[SJeveral states have held that penalty enhancement provisions set forth for subsequent offenses of specific crimes must be used when applicable instead of sentencing under a general recidivist statute, which would imply that both statutes may not be used for double penalty enhancement in sentencing for one offense. All the state court decisions invalidating double penalty enhancement employ canons of statutory construction such as: an habitual offender statute must be strictly construed, because it is penal; a specific statute (e.g., subsequent specific offense statute) controls over a more general one (e.g. habitual criminal statute); and a subsequent offense statute based upon a specific crime cannot create a ‘true’ felony, for purposes of an habitual offender statute, because it does not define an offense, but merely increases punishment upon a second or subsequent conviction of the same offense.” (Emphasis in original.)”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. State v. Dowdy

3. “We agree with the District Court that there was no prejudice because the felony-murder theory did not come as a surprise____ The omission of any express mention of felony murder from the indictment ... did not affect any of Williams’s substantial rights. His lawyers prepared a defense for both kinds of murder, and they vigorously resisted both theories at trial. The procedure was fair as a practical matter and not a violation of due process. In federal courts such a de facto amendment of an indictment might raise serious problems, but the Supreme Court has held that the Fourteenth Amendment does not require the states to use grand-jury indictments at all, even to prosecute serious crimes.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Franklin v. White