Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 741 F.2d 1248 - Smith v. Wainwright

Smith v. Wainwright’s Empirical Analysis

741 F.2d 1248 · 1984

Citation profile

67
cited by 67 later decisions
1
cited 1 times by the Supreme Court
5
states following
July 2024
most recently cited

28 federal appellate · 8 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 67 later decisions (1 by the Supreme Court) — most recently July 2024 · most notably Cargle v. Mullin (2003), 705 So. 2d 307 - Holland v. State (1997)

28 federal appellate · 8 state decisions

35019841990200020102020decided

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 · Anders v. California · Brady v. State of Maryland · Wainwright v. Sykes · Witherspoon v. Illinois

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 67 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. “jurors may well vote against the imposition of the death penalty due to the existence of `whimsical doubt,'”
    4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “render the conviction void and subject to collateral attack by habeas corpus because it goes to the merits of the conviction, not its legality.”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “id. at 1255, may have changed the outcome of the penalty phase: In this case, use of Wesley and Patricia Johnson's prior inconsistent statements might have created a whimsical doubt that would discourage the court and advisory jury from recommending the death penalty. Id. Unable to reach a conclusion concerning counsel's ineffectiveness without an evidentiary hearing to determine whether failure to use the statements was for a valid strategic purpose, the court remanded to the district court to give the state an opportunity to show that”
    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.