Evans v. State’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

4 district · 8 state decisions

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. “When Jackson was decided in 1997, we stated that section 4348 did not apply to any life sentence. That statement was also overbroad. In Jackson , we should have more accurately stated that section 4348 did not apply to any life sentence with the possibility of parole that was imposed before the effective date of Truth-in-Sentencing ... Thus, "to the extent” we stated that Jackson was overruled by Crosby , it was only to the extent that the unqualified reference in Jackson to “any life sentence” was overbroad and was not limited to the issue presented by Jackson: pre-Truth-in-Sen-tencing life sentences with the possibility of parole.”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 489 F. Supp. 2d 397 - Shockley v. Carroll · 722 F. Supp. 2d 523 - Evans v. Phelps

2. “[w]hen [Petitioner] was sentenced to life with the possibility of parole, the statutory sentencing system did not permit [Petitioner] to be released prior to his death-unless parole was granted. Similarly, good time credits only applied to [Petitioner’s] natural life sentence for purposes of accelerating [Petitioner’s] parole eligibility date. Accordingly, we hold that [Petitioner] — like Jackson — is not eligible for conditional release and must remain incarcerated until his death, unless he is granted parole.”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 489 F. Supp. 2d 397 - Shockley v. Carroll · 722 F. Supp. 2d 523 - Evans v. Phelps

3. “(a)Delaware judicial officers may not create or amend statutes, nor second-guess the soundness of public policy or wisdom of the General Assembly in passing statutes, nor may they interpret or construe statutes and other Delaware law when the text is clear and unambiguous. (b) Notwithstanding § 203 of Title 11, Delaware judicial officers shall strictly interpret or construe legislative intent. (c) Delaware judicial officers shall use the utmost restraint when interpreting or construing the laws of this State.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Smith v. Guest