Abdur' Rahman v. Bell’s Empirical Analysis
1998
Citation profile
Relationships
Applies 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996)
Relies on Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc. · Celotex Corporation v. Catrett H · Matsushita Electric Industrial Co., Ltd. v. Zenith Radio Corporation · Lockett v. Ohio · Boyde v. California
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 1 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“No death penalty shall be imposed ... unless you unanimously find that the State ... has proven beyond a reasonable doubt one or more of the following specified statutory aggravating circumstances: * * * * * * 3) the murder was especially heinous, atrocious, or cruel in that it involved torture or depravity of mind. In determining whether or not the State has proven aggravating circumstance number three above, you are governed by the following definitions. You are instructed that the word, heinous, means grossly wicked or reprehensible, abominable, odious, vile. Atrocious means extremely evil or cruel, monstrous, exceptionally bad, abominable. Cruel means disposed to inflict pain or suffering, causing suffering, painful. Depravity means moral corruption, wicked or perverse acts. Torture means the infliction of severe physical or mental pain upon the victim while she remains alive and conscious.”
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.