Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 969 SO2D 976 - Kearse v. State

Kearse v. State’s Empirical Analysis

2007

Citation profile

14
cited by 14 later decisions
2
states following
June 2015
most recently cited

2 federal appellate · 12 state decisions

Relationships

Relies on Strickland v. Washington · Brady v. State of Maryland · Ring v. Arizona · Ake v. Oklahoma · Atkins v. Virginia

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

  1. “The defendant ... takes issue with the weight that was given to the four statutory mitigating circumstances, which were given little weight, and with the weight given to two of the nonstatu-tory mitigating circumstances. Although Schoenwetter maintains these mitigating factors were not accorded the proper weight, he has failed to even argue, much less demonstrate, why the weight given by the trial judge was not appropriate under the facts of this case. The weight given to these mitigators lies within the discretion of the trial court, and there has been no showing that the trial court abused its discretion. Therefore, we find no error in the trial court’s consideration of these mitigating factors.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  2. “Both Dr. Martell’s actions in the federal criminal case and aüegations regarding his conduct postdated Kearse’s sentencing. Thus, the evidence did not exist at the time of the resentencing, and Kearse fails to meet the first prong of the test.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  3. “clearly fits within the exemption of attorney work product prepared with regard to the ongoing postconviction proceedings”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage

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.