Teague v. Scott’s Empirical Analysis
60 F.3d 1167 · 1995
Citation profile
27 federal appellate · 1 district · 20 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 89 later decisions — most recently September 2020 · most notably Davis v. Johnson (1998), Nguyen v. Reynolds B (1997)
27 federal appellate · 1 district · 20 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 · Swansboro Country, Inc. v. Lumberman's Mortgage Co. · Scherl v. Fisher · Nebraska v. Wyoming · Wrenn v. Ohio Department of Mental Health
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 89 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“cannot be the basis for a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel unless counsel's tactics are shown to be `so ill chosen that it permeates the entire trial with obvious unfairness.'”
11 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““One of the most important duties of an attorney representing a criminal defendant is advising the defendant about whether he should plead guilty. An attorney fulfills this obligation by informing the defendant about the relevant circumstances and the likely consequences of a plea. Apprising a defendant about his exposure under the sentencing guidelines is necessarily part of this process. A defendant cannot make an intelligent choice about whether to accept a plea offer unless he fully understands the risks of proceeding to trial. ‘Failing to properly advise the defendant of the maximum sentence that he could receive falls below the objective standard required by Strickland.’ ””
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“Mere disagreement with the state court factual findings is not sufficient to overcome those findings. Even an ambiguous record entitles the state court findings to this presumption of correctness.”
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.