Jones v. McAndrew’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

1 district · 1 state decisions

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

1. “Had these plaintiffs waited until they were under death warrant before filing their claims, defendants undoubtedly would have claimed they were here too late and were engaged in an ‘obvious attempt at manipulation’ and ‘abusive delay.’ Now, however, when plaintiffs are here early enough to avoid any delay in their executions, defendants say the court should wait to address their claims until the last minute.... The state has adopted the specific protocols and procedures it says it will follow in all future [executions]. These are not merely proposed or transient or evolving procedures; they are, instead, final procedures the state says [it will employ]. The issues raised by this claim are as well presented now, and as susceptible to meaningful review now, as they will be on the eve of plaintiffs’ executions. Plaintiffs’ challenge to the constitutionality of these procedures is ripe.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Treesh v. Taft

2. “the claim at issue here is far more analogous to the kind of claim properly (and routinely) brought under § 1983 than to a habeas action. This is not a challenge to any plaintiff's conviction or to the sentence of death. This is not even a challenge to the proposed carrying out of the sentence by electrocution. This is, instead, a challenge to the state's procedures that have in the past led to fires during the electrocution process— a challenge not to the sentence but to the conditions under which the state proposes to carry it out. .... Thus, this is not a case where plaintiffs challenge their convictions or sentences.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 714 So. 2d 404 - State Ex Rel. Butterworth v. Kenny

3. “plaintiffs have failed to exhaust state judicial remedies (as required in habeas cases) and have failed to meet the standards for, or to obtain permission to file, a second or subsequent habeas petition.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 714 So. 2d 404 - State Ex Rel. Butterworth v. Kenny