Loyd v. Smith’s Empirical Analysis
899 F.2d 1416 · 1990
Citation profile
14 federal appellate · 2 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 39 later decisions — most recently November 2010 · most notably Moore v. Johnson (1999), Wiley v. Puckett (1992)
14 federal appellate · 2 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 · Ake v. Oklahoma · Sumner v. Mata · Marshall v. Lonberger · Liegl v. Webb
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 39 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“Although the ultimate question of whether or not counsel's performance was deficient is a mixed question of law and fact [to be considered de novo ], state court findings of fact made in the course of deciding an ineffectiveness claim are subject to the deference requirement of section 2254(d).”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Carter v. Collins · Drew v. Collins“The district court wholly failed to address the state court's implicit finding that the failure to properly investigate stemmed, at least in part, from Hackman's ignorance as to the admissibility of statutory mitigating evidence of mental disease or defect which did not reach the level of insanity under the McNaughten rule. Had Hackman understood the relevance of mitigating evidence, an attempt to develop such testimony could have begun at an earlier stage.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“at least one of Lloyd's attorneys was wholly unaware of the admissibility of statutory mitigating circumstances, such as mental disease or defect not rising to the level of insanity.”
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.