Pavatt v. Royal’s Empirical Analysis
859 F.3d 920 · 2017
Citation profile
4 federal appellate ·
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)
Relies on Strickland v. Washington · Jackson v. Virginia · Apprendi v. New Jersey · Williams v. Taylor · Coleman v. Thompson
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 4 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“death penalty imposed under the aggravator must still be based on a construction that in a 'principled way' can distinguish the case from the many in which the penalty was not imposed.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the concurrence“the act of murder did not immediately render the victim unconscious[,] and the wounds could have caused pain.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the concurrence“[E]ven when a State has previously applied a constitutionally valid narrowing construction of an aggravator,”
2 later decisions 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.