Songer v. Wainwright’s Empirical Analysis
1983
Citation profile
6 federal appellate · 2 district · 2 state decisions
Relationships
Applies 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996) · 28 U.S.C. § 753
Relies on Anders v. California · Gregg v. Georgia · Witherspoon v. Illinois · Lockett v. Ohio · Engle v. Isaac
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 20 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“it is quite possible that [Coniglio] may have been laboring under the reasonable, but mistaken, belief that he could not introduce any nonstatutory factors.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“The only recollection I have is that was a new statute at that time, . . . going over the statutory grounds with him for aggravating circumstances and mitigating circumstances, and what would be available to us under the statutory language and what would be against us under the statutory language. . . . [I examined] all the factors we had available to us.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“fails to conduct a substantial investigation into one plausible line of defense because of his reasonable strategic choice to rely upon another plausible line of defense at trial.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Songer v. Wainwright
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.