Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 41 F.3d 968 - Mann v. Scott

Mann v. Scott’s Empirical Analysis

41 F.3d 968 · 1994

Citation profile

66
cited by 66 later decisions
1
states following
October 2018
most recently cited

27 federal appellate · 1 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 66 later decisions — most recently October 2018 · most notably United States of America v. Bountaem Chanthadara (2000), Goodwin v. Johnson (1997)

27 federal appellate · 1 state decisions

340199420002010decided

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 · Johnson v. Zerbst · Edwards v. Arizona · Teague v. Lane · Rhode Island v. Innis

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

  1. “[S]uch credibility determinations are more appropriately resolved under the watchful eye of the trial judge than by an appellate court staring at a cold record, which is precisely why they are accorded a presumption of correctness under 2254(d).”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “If a prospective juror's emotional opposition is so severe that it compels her to ignore the law or disables her from answering the statutory questions without conscious distortion or bias, exclusion for cause is proper.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “intentionally commits the murder in the course of committing or attempting to commit kidnapping, burglary, robbery, aggravated sexual assault, arson, or obstruction or retaliation.”
    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.