Dobbs v. Kemp’s Empirical Analysis
790 F.2d 1499 · 1986
Citation profile
33 federal appellate · 1 district · 3 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 51 later decisions (2 by the Supreme Court) — most recently April 2013 · most notably 1 Cal. 4th 1132 - People v. Howard (1992), United States v. Diaz (2001)
33 federal appellate · 1 district · 3 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 Strickland v. Washington · Wainwright v. Sykes · Manson v. Brathwaite · Bonner v. City of Prichard · Witherspoon v. Illinois
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 51 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“Although [counsel] did not present any mitigating evidence, his testimony in the district court reveals that he did make a closing argument in mitigation.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the dissente.g. Dobbs v. Zant · Dobbs v. Zant“In addition, other instructions cautioned the jury that they were not authorized to recommend the death sentence unless they first found ‘beyond a reasonable doubt ... one of the aggravating circumstances which the Legislature has provided.' See, e.g., Trial Transcript at 511. The trial judge also described the particular statutory aggravating circumstance argued by the state, i.e., that the crime was committed while the defendant was engaged in the commission of another capital felony. Id. at 512. Moreover, the trial judge told the jury “you are not bound to sentence him to death even though you find there is an aggravating circumstance which the Legislature saw fit for a jury to consider.” Id. at 516.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the dissente.g. Dobbs v. Zant“[c]onsidering the entire charge in context, we are confident that no reasonable juror could have misunderstood the nature and function of mitigating circumstances and its role in evaluating mitigating evidence in argument. Thus, ... the trial court's jury instructions were not constitutionally deficient.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the dissente.g. Dobbs v. Zant
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.