Morva v. Zook’s Empirical Analysis
821 F.3d 517 · 2016
Citation profile
3 federal appellate ·
Relationships
Applies 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996)
Relies on Strickland v. Washington · Coleman v. Thompson · Lockett v. Ohio · Wiggins v. Smith, Warden · Ake v. Oklahoma
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 12 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[w]here the state puts future dangerousness at issue, and the only available alternative sentence to death is life imprisonment without possibility of parole, due process entitles the defendant to inform the capital sentencing jury ... that he is parole ineligible.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the concurrencee.g. Porter v. Zook“evidence regarding general prison life and security offered to show that Morva's opportunities to commit criminal acts of violence in the future would be severely limited in a maximum security prison.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the concurrencee.g. Lawlor v. Zook“[the state] court's classification of prison-environment evidence as irrelevant and therefore inadmissible is not unreasonable under U.S. Supreme Court precedent.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the concurrencee.g. Lawlor v. Zook
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.