Burden v. Zant’s Empirical Analysis
975 F.2d 771 · 1992
Citation profile
4 federal appellate ·
Appellate journey
Relationships
Applies 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996)
Relies on Gregg v. Georgia · Sumner v. Mata · Keeney v. Tamayo-Reyes · County of Los Angeles v. Chavez-Salido · Hazra v. United States
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 9 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“Dixon did not testify under a grant of transactional immunity or pursuant to a promise that the State would not prosecute him for his part in the crimes at issue.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Burden Zant Warden · Burden v. Zant“In our judgment, the state trial court’s statements in the post-conviction report are not factual findings; they were not the product of an adversary proceeding before the court_ Rather, ... they constitute personal impressions of the trial judge rendered for the purpose of aiding the Georgia Supreme Court’s appellate review.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Burden v. Zant“the state trial court’s observation is not entitled to a presumption of correctness under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (d) because material facts were not adequately developed before the court,”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Burden v. Zant
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.