Pizzuto v. Blades’s Empirical Analysis
729 F.3d 1211 · 2013
Citation profile
4 federal appellate · 1 district · 1 state decisions
Relationships
Applies 28 U.S.C. § 1291 · 28 U.S.C. § 2253 (Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996) · 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996) · 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996)
Relies on Williams v. Taylor · Brecht v. Abrahamson · City of Cleburne Texas v. Cleburne Living Center · Lindh v. Murphy · Atkins v. Virginia
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.
“intellectual disability.” See, e.g., Pizzuto v. Blades, 729 F.3d 1211 , 1214 n. 1 (9th Cir.2013) (citing Robert L. Shalock et at, The Renaming of Mental Retardation: Understanding the Change to the Term Intellectual Disability, 45 Intell. & Dev. Disabilities 116, 116-17 (2007)); see also Rosa's Law, Pub. L. No. 111-256, 124 Stat. 2643 (2010) (”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the concurrence“[W]hen enacting Idaho Code § 19 -2515A(1), the legislature did not require that the IQ score be within five points of 70 or below. It required that it be 70 or below.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Pizzuto v. Blades“was contrary to, or involved an unreasonable application of, clearly established Federal law, as determined by the Supreme Court of the United States,”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Pizzuto v. Blades
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.