Crosby v. Schwartz’s Empirical Analysis
678 F.3d 784 · 2012
Citation profile
1 state decisions
Relationships
Applies 28 U.S.C. § 1291 · 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996)
Relies on Williams v. Taylor · Faretta v. California · Solem v. Helm · Harmelin v. Michigan · Lockyer Attorney General of California v. Andrade
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 7 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“Circumstances satisfying the gross disproportionality principle are rare and extreme, and constitutional violations on that ground are 'only for the extraordinary case.'”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Davis v. Johnson
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.