Schouest v. Whitley’s Empirical Analysis
927 F.2d 205 · 1991
Citation profile
7 federal appellate ·
Relationships
Applies 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996)
Relies on Strickland v. Washington · Riverbend Farms, Inc. v. Agricultural Labor Relations Board · Thompson v. Thompson · New Motor Vehicle Board of California v. Chevrolet Motor Division, General Motors Corp. · Connecticut Performing Arts Foundation, Inc. v. Brown
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 23 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[i]t is entirely proper for the district court to raise on its own motion the issue of a repetitive petition or abuse of the writ.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Williams v. Whitley“awareness that a competent lawyer would have possessed.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Woods v. Whitley
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.