Pape v. Thaler’s Empirical Analysis
645 F.3d 281 · 2011
Citation profile
4 federal appellate ·
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 · Harrington v. Richter · McNeill v. United States
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 16 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[C]ounsel’s decisions regarding examination and presentation of witnesses and testimony ... fall within [the] category of trial strategy[,] which enjoys a strong presumption of effectiveness.”). 16 . Hollenbeck v. Estelle, 672 F.2d 451 , 454 (5th Cir.1982) (”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“whether the state court's determination is at least minimally consistent with the facts and circumstances of the case.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Mejia v. Stephens
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.