Potts v. Zant’s Empirical Analysis
734 F.2d 526 · 1984
Citation profile
30 federal appellate · 2 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 46 later decisions (1 by the Supreme Court) — most recently June 2001 · most notably Kemp v. Potts (1986), Drake v. Kemp (1985)
30 federal appellate · 2 state decisions
Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.
Relationships
Applies 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996)
Relies on Blockburger v. United States · North Carolina v. Pearce · Gregg v. Georgia · Witherspoon v. Illinois · Donnelly v. DeChristoforo
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 46 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“the Justice of the Supreme Court of Georgia,”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the concurrence“The acts of a person of sound mind and discretion are presumed to be the product of the person's will, but the presumption may be rebutted. A person of sound mind and discretion is presumed to intend the natural and probable consequences of his acts, but the presumption may be rebutted. A person will not be presumed to act with criminal intention but the trier of facts, that is, the Jury, may find criminal intention upon a consideration of the words, conduct, demeanor, motive and all other circumstances connected with the act for which the accused is prosecuted.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Potts v. Kemp“Intent is always a question for the jury and is ordinarily ascertained by act and conduct. Intent may be shown in many ' ways, provided the jury finds that it existed from the evidence produced before them, that is here in this courtroom during this trial. It may be inferred from the proven circumstances or by acts and conduct or it may be presumed when it is the natural and necessary consequences of the act.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the concurrence
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.