Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 890 F.2d 332 - Lusk v. Dugger

Lusk v. Dugger’s Empirical Analysis

890 F.2d 332 · 1989

Citation profile

43
cited by 43 later decisions
1
cited 1 times by the Supreme Court
1
states following
June 2010
most recently cited

13 federal appellate · 1 district · 1 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 43 later decisions (1 by the Supreme Court) — most recently June 2010 · most notably Spaziano v. Singletary (1994), Bolender v. Singletary (1994)

13 federal appellate · 1 district · 1 state decisions

3901989199020002010decided

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 · Lockett v. Ohio · Eddings v. Oklahoma · Skipper v. South Carolina · Spaziano v. Florida

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

  1. “[t]he state courts concluded that there were no reasonable bases for the jury's recommendation despite the fact that both the jury as advisor and the judge as sentencer were made aware of mitigating factors.... [W]e do not find that the result of the application of Tedder was arbitrary or irrational.”
    3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “the mere presence of mitigating evidence does not automatically provide a reasonable basis for the jury's recommendation.”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “This contention is inextricably linked to Lusk's interpretation of Tedder and its progeny. Lusk contends that if there is any basis to support a jury recommendation of life, then the trial judge must abandon his duty to balance aggravating factors against mitigating factors in determining sentence and accept that recommendation. It is now clear that the Florida courts do not so interpret Tedder . The Florida Supreme Court recently held in Pentecost v. State, 545 So.2d 861 (Fla.1989) that such an understanding of the jury override rule was incorrect. Lusk, 890 F.2d at 337 n. 4.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority

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.