Lopez v. Ryan’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

16 federal appellate · 1 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 21 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “Just as the State may not by statute preclude the sentencer from considering any mitigating factor, neither may the sentencer refuse to consider, as a matter of law, any relevant mitigating evidence .... The sentencer, and the Court of Criminal Appeals on review, may determine the weight to be given relevant mitigating evidence. But they may not give it no weight by excluding such evidence from their consideration.”

   4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Poyson v. Ryan · Poyson v. Ryan

2. “Our review of the case law confirms Arizona’s unsettled past with respect to this issue. Some cases decided prior to Tennard applied a causal nexus requirement in an impermissible manner. Other cases, however, properly looked to causal nexus only as a factor in determining the weight or significance of mitigating evidence.”

   3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Poyson v. Ryan · Poyson v. Ryan

3. “Absent a clear indication in the record that the state court applied the wrong standard, we cannot assume the courts violated Edding’s constitutional mandates. See Bell v. Cone, [ 543 U.S. 447 , 455, 125 S.Ct. 847 , 160 L.Ed.2d 881 ] (2005) (“Federal courts are not free to presume that a state court did not comply with constitutional dictates on the basis of nothing more than a lack of citation.”).”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. McKinney v. Ryan