Cooke v. Solis’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

3 federal appellate ·

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

1. “[E]ach of the Board’s findings ... lacked any evidentiary basis. Nothing in the record supports the state court’s finding that there was “some evidence” in addition to the circumstances of the commitment offense to support the Board’s denial of Petitioner’s parole. The Parole Board’s findings were individually and in toto unreasonable because they were without evidentiary support. When habeas courts review the “some evidence” requirement in California parole cases, both the subsidiary findings and the ultimate finding of some evidence constitute factual findings. Here, there was no evidence that reasonably supports either the necessary subsidiary findings or the ultimate “some evidence” finding. Accordingly, we hold that the state court decision was “ ‘based on an unreasonable determination of the facts in light of the evidence.’ ” Hayward, 603 F.3d at 563 (quoting 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (d)(2)). Cooke is entitled to a writ of habeas corpus.”

   3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Holder v. Curry · 747 F. Supp. 2d 1181 - Owen v. Clark

2. “[T]he State’s argument is based on a fundamental misunderstanding of the Hayward holding!, which] specifically commands federal courts to examine the reasonableness of the state court’s application of the California “some evidence” requirement, as well as the reasonableness of the state court’s determination of the facts in light of the evidence. That command can only be read as requiring an examination of how the state court applied the requirement. Moreover, after examining the particular state court decision at issue, Hayward concluded that the district court properly denied the writ because “[t]here was some evidence of future dangerousness” justifying the denial of parole, and not merely because the state court purported to identify some evidence of future dangerousness. In short, the Hayward court itself performed the function that the State argues it forbade. Indubitably, Hayward neither announced nor applied the test now urged by the State.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 713 F. Supp. 2d 992 - Martinez v. Marshall

3. “As a matter of California law, ‘the paramount consideration for both the Board and the Governor under the governing statutes is whether the inmate currently poses a threat to public safety.’ There must be ‘some evidence’ of such a threat, and an aggravated offense ‘does not, in every case, provide evidence that the inmate is a current threat to public safety.’ The prisoner’s aggravated offense does not establish current dangerousness ‘unless the record also establishes that something in the prisoner’s pre- or post-incarceration history, or his or her current demeanor and mental state’ supports the inference of dangerousness. Thus, in California, the offense of conviction may be considered, but the consideration must address the determining factor, ‘a current threat to public safety.’”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 721 F. Supp. 2d 891 - Lopez v. Curry