Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 894 F.3d 1115 - Pavatt v. Royal

Pavatt v. Royal’s Empirical Analysis

894 F.3d 1115 · 2017

Citation profile

7
cited by 7 later decisions
March 2023
most recently cited

6 federal appellate ·

How this case has been cited

Cited by 7 later decisions — most recently March 2023

6 federal appellate ·

5020172020decided

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.

Appellate journey

reviewedthe decision below (from Oklahoma Western District Court)

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

  1. “did not apply a constitutionally acceptable interpretation of Oklahoma's HAC aggravator.”
    3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the concurrence
  2. “(1) resulted in a decision that was contrary to, or involved an unreasonable application of, clearly established Federal Law, as determined by the Supreme Court of the United States; or (2) resulted in a decision that was based on an unreasonable determination of the facts in light of the evidence presented in the State court proceedings.”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “crimes deserving death and the many cases in which the death penalty is not imposed.”
    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.