Porter v. Wainwright’s Empirical Analysis
805 F.2d 930 · 1986
Citation profile
47 federal appellate · 28 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 124 later decisions — most recently April 2016 · most notably United States v. Teague (1992), United States v. Bowie (1990)
47 federal appellate · 28 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 · Hill v. Lockhart · Wainwright v. Sykes · Townsend v. Sain · Cuyler v. Sullivan
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 124 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“In light of the very strict standard that applies in [Florida] jury override cases, and in light of the fact that the sentencing judge viewed this case as one without any mitigating circumstances when in fact, assuming Porter's allegations to be true as we must in this posture, there were mitigating circumstances which cannot be characterized as insubstantial, our confidence in the outcome the outcome being the trial judge's decision to reject the jury's recommendation is undermined... . We cannot say that, with Porter's proffered evidence in hand, no reasonable person could differ as to the appropriate penalty.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Francis v. State · Johnson v. State“a hearing [on a habeas corpus petition] is not required unless the petitioner alleges facts which, if proved, would entitle him to federal habeas relief”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Ex Parte Land · Kennedy v. Dugger“would -have satisfied both-the performance and prejudice prongs of the Strickland test for ineffective assistance of counsel.” Id. at 936 . If the district judge on remand determined that petitioner's attorneys were “constitutionally ineffective,” then the petitioner”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Hardwick v. Crosby
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.