Segundo v. Davis’s Empirical Analysis
831 F.3d 345 · 2016
Citation profile
3 federal appellate ·
Relationships
Applies 28 U.S.C. § 2253 (Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996)
Relies on Strickland v. Washington · Slack v. McDaniel · Atkins v. Virginia · 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 8 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“when the prisoner shows, at least, that jurists of reason would find it debatable whether the petition states a valid claim of the denial of a constitutional right and that jurists of reason would find it debatable whether the district court was correct in its procedural ruling.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Halprin v. Davis“Dr. Connell. See Segundo v. Davis , 831 F.3d 345 , 352 (5th Cir.2016) (quoting Smith v. Cockrell , 311 F.3d 661 , 676-77 (5th Cir.2002), overruled on other grounds by Tennard v. Dretke , 542 U.S. 274 , 124 S.Ct. 2562 , 159 L.Ed.2d 384 (2004) ).”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Murphy v. Davis“counsel should be able to rely on that expert to alert counsel to additional needed information or other possible routes of investigation.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Murphy v. Davis
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.