Suggs v. McNeil’s Empirical Analysis
609 F.3d 1218 · 2010
Citation profile
17 federal appellate · 1 state decisions
Appellate journey
Relationships
Applies 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996)
Relies on Strickland v. Washington · Williams v. Taylor · Wiggins v. Smith, Warden · Woodford v. Visciotti · Panetti v. Quarterman
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 27 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“a reasonable jury is likely to have been highly skeptical of a penalty-phase expert who, according to his own testimony, testifies 'in many' habeas proceedings and 'usually ... on behalf of the defense’ and who would have testified for Suggs about intellectual 'efficiency.' ” (alteration in original)); Pace v. McNeil, 556 F.3d 1211 , 1217, 1224 n.22 (11th Cir. 2009) (”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Tharpe v. Warden
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.