Skaggs v. Parker’s Empirical Analysis
235 F.3d 261 · 2000
Citation profile
60 federal appellate · 13 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 93 later decisions — most recently August 2021 · most notably 115 Ohio St. 3d 22 - State v. Mundt (2007), Lundgren v. Mitchell (2006)
60 federal appellate · 13 state decisions
Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.
Relationships
Applies 28 U.S.C. § 2253 (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. § 2264 (§ 107 of the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996)
Relies on Strickland v. Washington · Slack v. McDaniel · Williams v. Taylor · Gregg v. Georgia · Estelle v. McGuire
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 93 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“When a defendant challenges a conviction, the question is whether there is a reasonable probability that, absent the errors, the factfinder would have had a reasonable doubt respecting guilt. When a defendant challenges a death sentence such as the one at issue in this case, the question is whether there is a reasonable probability that, absent the errors, the sentencer — including an appellate court, to the extent it independently reweighs the evidence — would have concluded that the balance of aggravating and mitigating circumstances did not warrant death.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Thompson v. Bell“suffer[ed] from significant compromise in almost all areas of cognitive function .... and that the results of comprehensive neuropsychological assessment clearly reflect a pattern of results consistent with some form of organic brain syndrome.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Thompson v. Bell“[t]he Court recently emphasized that a petitioner need not prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the result would have been different, but merely that there is a reasonable probability that the result would have been different.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Thompson v. Bell
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.