Duvall v. Reynolds’s Empirical Analysis
131 F.3d 907 · 1997
Citation profile
8 federal appellate · 1 state decisions
Relationships
Applies 28 U.S.C. § 1291 · 28 U.S.C. § 2244 (Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996) · 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996) · 28 U.S.C. § 2261 (§ 107 of the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996)
Relies on Strickland v. Washington · Brady v. State of Maryland · United States v. Bagley · Coleman v. Thompson · Brecht v. Abrahamson
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 13 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“Mitigating circumstances are those which, in fairness and mercy, may be considered as extenuating or reducing the degree of moral culpability or blame. The determination of what are mitigating circumstances is for you as jurors to resolve under the facts and circumstances of this case.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Castro v. Ward“strategic choices made after less than complete investigation are reasonable precisely to the extent that reasonable professional judgments support the limitations on investigation.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“his counsel 'committed serious errors in light of prevailing professional norms' such that his legal representation fell below an objective standard or reasonableness,”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Ferguson v. Williams
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.