Scott v. Elo’s Empirical Analysis
302 F.3d 598 · 2002
Citation profile
8 federal appellate ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 32 later decisions (1 by the Supreme Court) — most recently November 2022 · most notably Fahy v. Horn (2008), Keith v. Mitchell (2006)
8 federal appellate ·
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. § 2254 (Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996)
Relies on Strickland v. Washington · Jackson v. Virginia · Williams v. Taylor · Lindh v. Murphy · Beck v. Alabama
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 32 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“It appears to us that the Supreme Court’s opinion in Beck is grounded upon Eighth Amendment concerns, rather than those arising from the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. If we are correct in that assessment, then we are not required to extend Beck to noncapital cases. Instead, we must determine whether the error asserted by Bagby is of the character or magnitude which should be cognizable on collateral attack. Is the failure to instruct on lesser included offenses in noncapital cases such a fundamental defect as inherently results in a miscarriage of justice or an omission inconsistent with rudimentary demands of fair procedure? ... Experience tells us that it is not. Our view, that it is not an error of such character and magnitude to be cognizable in federal habeas corpus review, is shared by a majority of the circuits....”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“does not stand for the proposition ... that where a portion of a trial transcript is missing and unobtainable, and where a defendant makes a claim that could possibly implicate that portion of the transcript, a retrial is always necessary. Rather, ... federal habeas relief based on a missing transcript will only be granted where the petitioner can show prejudice.”); Stirone v. United States, 341 F.2d 253 , 256 (3d Cir.1965) (failure of stenographer to transcribe voir dire was harmless error where”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Fahy v. Horn“The Supreme Court has not held that constitutional claims that would not individually support habeas relief may be cumulated in order to support relief. See Lorraine v. Coyle, 291 F.3d 416, 447 (6th Cir.2002).”
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.