Clark v. Quarterman

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• noting that a state court’s determination under § 2254(d)(2) is a question of fact
• stating that IQ of 70 is “the rough cut-off for mental retardation”
• Atkins “did not dictate that the approach” to defining mental retardation “must track the approach of the [AAIDD] or the APA exactly”
• Atkins “did not dictate that the approach and the analysis of the State inquiry must track the approach of the AAMR or the APA exactly”
• “Although the Court [in Atkins ] did refer to the clinical definitions of mental retardation promulgated by the AAMR ... it did not dictate that the approach and the analysis of the State inquiry must track the approach of the AAMR ... exactly.”
• “Although the Court [in Atkins] did refer to the clinical defi- nitions of mental retardation promulgated by the AAMR . . . it did not dictate that the ap- proach and the analysis of the State inquiry must track the approach of the AAMR . . . exact- ly.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).