Mayo v. Lynaugh’s Empirical Analysis
882 F.2d 134 · 1989
Citation profile
4 federal appellate ·
Relationships
Applies 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996)
Relies on Strickland v. Washington · Edwards v. Arizona · Witherspoon v. Illinois · Smith v. Phillips · Jones v. Barnes
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 13 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“having reviewed the record and questioned the Petitioner personally, determined that the Petitioner is familiar with Penry v. Lynaugh and has no additional evidence regarding mitigating circumstances to offer.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Mayo v. Lynaugh“the jury was precluded from giving effect to all the mitigating evidence submitted during the sentencing phase of his trial”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Mayo v. Lynaugh
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.