Moore v. Zant’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

8 federal appellate ·

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 13 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “2) Petitioner was sentenced on the basis of materially false and misleading information contained in the presentence report. 5) The presentence report defects prevented petitioner from obtaining a meaningful appellate review in violation of his [sic] Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments. 6) Petitioner's death sentence is excessive and disproportionate under the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments since it was imposed despite his repeated and uncontradicted denial of any intent to kill the victim. 9) Since the sentencing judge expressly relied on the prospect of appellate review or the United States Supreme Court’s invalidation of Georgia's capital statutes, [he] attached diminished consequences to the sentence of death as imposed and thus took less than full responsibility for the sentencing decision in violation of petitioner’s Eighth and Fourteenth Amendment right.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Moore v. Kemp

2. “controlling weight may be given to denial of a prior application for federal habeas corpus or § 2255 relief only if (1) the same ground presented in the subsequent application was determined adversely to the applicant on the prior application, (2) the prior determination was on the merits, and (3) the ends of justice would not be served by reaching the merits of the subsequent application.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 637 F. Supp. 1547 - Fleming v. Kemp

3. “A pattern seems to be developing in capital cases of multiple review in which claims that could have been presented years ago are brought forward — often in a piecemeal fashion — only after the execution date is set or becomes imminent. Federal courts should not continue to tolerate — even in capital cases — this type of abuse of the writ of habeas corpus.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the dissent
   e.g. 637 F. Supp. 1547 - Fleming v. Kemp