Gray v. Lucas’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

26 federal appellate · 1 district · 15 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 63 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “"Gray stresses that neither the Supreme Court nor any federal court has addressed the issue whether the gas chamber constitutes cruel and unusual punishment. In cases decided in the last century, however, the court approved New York’s use of the electric chair, In re Kemmler, 136 U.S. 436 , 10 S. Ct. 930 , 34 L. Ed. 519 (1890), and Utah’s use of hanging and the firing squad, Wilkerson v. Utah, 99 U.S. 130 , 25 L. Ed. 345 (1879). In this century, a number of states have upheld the use of the gas chamber. Duisen v. State, 441 S.W.2d 688, 693 (Mo. 1969), modified by Furman v. Georgia, 408 U.S. 238 , 92 S. Ct. 2726 , 33 L. Ed. 2d 346 (1972); People v. Daugherty, 40 Cal. 2d 876 , 256 P.2d 911 , cert. denied, 346 U.S. 827 , 74 S.Ct. 47 , 98 L. Ed. 352 (1953); State v. Jon, 46 Nev. 418 , 211 P. 676 (1923). See also In Re Anderson, 69 Cal. 2d 613 , 73 Cal. Rptr. 21 , 447 P.2d 117, 130 (1968), cert. denied, 406 U.S. 971 , 92 S. Ct. 2415 , 32 L. Ed. 2d 671 (1972). This year, the state of Nevada enacted a statutory provision which abandoned the gas chamber in favor of lethal injection. Nev. Rev. Stat. § 176.355 (1983). Nevada thus joins New Mexico in abandoning the gas chamber in favor of lethal injection. N.M. Stat. Ann. § 31-14-11 (1979). North Carolina allows death-row prisoners to choose between lethal injection or the gas chamber. In 1981, the State of Washington banned further use of hanging as a method of execution. State v. Frampton, 95 Wash.2d 469 , 627 P.2d 922 (1981). "Gray a”

   5 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the dissent
   e.g. Gray v. Lucas, Warden, Et Al. · Fierro v. Gomez

2. “Gray urges that we should withhold decision pending the decision of the Supreme Court in Pulley v. Harris where it granted certiorari to determine whether review is constitutionally required and if so “what is the constitutionally required focus, scope and procedural structure of such review.” See Pulley v. Harris, cert. granted, [-] U.S. [-], 103 S.Ct. 1425 , 75 L.Ed.2d 787 (1983). See 51 U.S.Law Week 3590. We note that a similar claim was raised in opposition to dissolve a stay in Alabama v. Evans, [-] U.S. [-], 103 S.Ct. 1736 , 75 L.Ed.2d 806 (1983), but the court declined to halt the execution.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the dissent
   e.g. Williams v. King

3. “(b) For the purposes of this subsection, a person shall be deemed insane if the court finds the convict does not have sufficient intelligence to understand the nature of the proceedings against him, what he was tried for, the purpose of his punishment, the impending fate which awaits him, and a sufficient understanding to know any fact which might exist which would make his punishment unjust or unlawful and the intelligence requisite to convey such information to his attorneys or the court.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the dissent
   e.g. Billiot v. State