Slaughter v. Parker’s Empirical Analysis
450 F.3d 224 · 2006
Citation profile
21 federal appellate · 3 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 39 later decisions — most recently April 2025 · most notably Asmo v. Keane, Inc. (2006), Leonard v. Commonwealth (2009)
21 federal appellate · 3 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. § 2254 (Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996)
Relies on Strickland v. Washington · United States v. Booker · Williams v. Taylor · Estelle v. McGuire · Lockett v. Ohio
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 39 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“A careful reading of Wiggins ... reveals that the [Supreme] Court looked to Strickland while analyzing whether trial counsel performed an adequate investigation in preparing for the penalty phase of Wiggins’s trial, which occurred in October of 1989. See Hamblin [v. Mitchell], 354 F.3d at 487 (“[t]he Court in Wiggins clearly holds ... that it is not making ‘new law 1 on the ineffective assistance of counsel either in Wiggins or in the earlier case on which it relied for its standards, Williams v. Taylor []”). Hence, we may look to Wiggins to decide whether the Supreme Court of Kentucky unreasonably applied Supreme Court precedent.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Foley v. Parker“(d) An application for a writ of habeas corpus on behalf of a person in custody pursuant to the judgment of a State court shall not be granted with respect to any claim that was adjudicated on the merits in State court proceedings unless the adjudication of the claim— (1) resulted in a decision that was contrary to, or involved an unreasonable application of, clearly established Federal law, as determined by the Supreme Court of the United States; or (2) resulted in a decision that was based on an unreasonable determination of the facts in light of the evidence presented at the State court proceedings.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Hawkins v. Coyle“In Slaughter’s case, the trial court instructed the jury on first-degree robbery as well as intentional murder. As in Schad , the jury was not faced with an all-or-nothing choice. Because the jury had the option to convict Slaughter of a lesser, though still violent, crime, we find that Beck is not implicated.”
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.