Sasser v. Hobbs’s Empirical Analysis
745 F.3d 896 · 2014
Citation profile
Relationships
Applies 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996)
Relies on Atkins v. Virginia · Rhines v. Weber · Cullen v. Pinholster · Cullen v. Pinholster · 132 S. Ct. 1309 - Martinez v. Ryan
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 1 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“failed to prepare for his expert's testimony and was unable to adequately present compelling evidence of mitigating circumstances;”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the dissente.g. Sasser v. Kelley“failed to investigate for the penalty phase and to call additional witnesses to adduce evidence of relevant mitigating factors;”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the dissente.g. Sasser v. Kelley“failed to counter the State's erroneous characterization of the role of mental disease/defect in penalty mitigation.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the dissente.g. Sasser v. Kelley
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.