green
Positive treatment
4.4 score
Treatment trajectory · 1982 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1982
2004
2026
Top citers, strongest first. 11 distinct citers.
How cited ↗
discussed
Cited "see"
Garza v. Thaler
See Neal v. Puckett, 286 F.3d 230, 237 (5th Cir.2002) (recognizing that, in evaluating the performance of trial counsel against a claim that said counsel failed to investigate and present mitigating evidence, the relevant inquiry focuses on what counsel did to prepare for sentencing, what mitigating evidence counsel accumulated, what additional leads counsel had, and the results said counsel might reasonably have expected from those leads), cert. denied, 537 U.S. 1104 , 123 S.Ct. 963 , 154 L.Ed.2d 772 (2003); Gutierrez v. Dretke, 392 F.Supp.2d 802, 875-76 (W.D.Tex.2005) (recognizing the burden…
discussed
Cited "see"
Jasper v. Thaler
See Neal v. Puckett, 286 F.3d 230, 237 (5th Cir.2002) (recognizing that, in evaluating the performance of trial counsel against a claim that said counsel failed to investigate and present mitigating evidence, the relevant inquiry focuses on what counsel did to prepare for sentencing, what mitigating evidence counsel accumulated, what additional leads counsel had, and the results said counsel might reasonably have expected from those leads), cert. denied, 537 U.S. 1104 , 123 S.Ct. 963 , 154 L.Ed.2d 772 (2003).
discussed
Cited "see"
Bartee v. Quarterman
See Neal v. Puckett, 286 F.3d 230, 237 (5th Cir.2002) (recognizing *650 that, in evaluating the performance of trial counsel against a claim that said counsel failed to investigate and present mitigating evidence, the relevant inquiry focuses on what counsel did to prepare for sentencing, what mitigating evidence counsel accumulated, what additional leads counsel had, and the results said counsel might reasonably have expected from those leads), cert. denied, 537 U.S. 1104 , 123 S.Ct. 963 , 154 L.Ed.2d 772 (2003).
cited
Cited "see"
Shelton v. King
See Neal v. Puckett, 286 F.3d 230, 235 (5th Cir.2002), cert. denied, 537 U.S. 1104 , 123 S.Ct. 963 , 154 L.Ed.2d 772 (2003).
discussed
Cited "see"
Moore v. Quarterman
See Neal v. Puckett, 286 F.3d 230, 237 (5th Cir.2002)(recognizing that, in evaluating the performance of trial counsel against a claim that said counsel failed to investigate and present mitigating evidence, the relevant inquiry focuses on what counsel did to prepare for sentencing, what mitigating evidence counsel accumulated, what additional leads counsel had, and the results said counsel might reasonably have expected from those leads), cert. denied, 537 U.S. 1104 , 123 S.Ct. 963 , 154 L.Ed.2d 772 (2003).
discussed
Cited "see"
Blanton v. Quarterman
See Neal v. Puckett, 286 F.3d 230, 236-40 (5th Cir.2002)(in evaluating the performance of trial counsel against a claim counsel failed to investigate and present mitigating evidence, the relevant inquiry focuses on what counsel did to prepare for sentencing, what mitigating evidence counsel accumulated, what additional leads counsel had, and the results counsel might reasonably have expected from those leads), cert. denied, 537 U.S. 1104 , 123 S.Ct. 963 , 154 L.Ed.2d 772 (2003); Gutierrez v. Dretke, 392 F.Supp.2d 802, 875 (W.D.Tex.2005)(reeognizing the importance of interrogating the petitione…
discussed
Cited "see"
Nichols v. Bell
See Neal v. Puckett, 286 F.3d 230, 241 (5th Cir.2002), cert. denied, 537 U.S. 1104 , 123 S.Ct. 963 , 154 L.Ed.2d 772 (2003) (“In determining prejudice, we are thus required to compare the evidence actually presented at sentencing with all the mitigating evidence contained in the post-conviction record.
discussed
Cited "see"
Gutierrez v. Dretke
See Neal v. Puckett, 286 F.3d 230 (5th Cir. 2002) (recognizing in evaluating the performance of trial counsel against a claim counsel failed to investigate and present mitigating evidence, the relevant inquiry focuses on what counsel did to prepare for sentencing, what mitigating evidence counsel accumulated, what additional leads counsel had, and the results said counsel might reasonably have expected from those leads), cert. denied, 537 U.S. 1104 , 123 S.Ct. 963 , 154 L.Ed.2d 772 (2003).
discussed
Cited "see"
Schaetzle v. Cockrell
See Neal v. Puckett, 286 F.3d 230, 246 (5th Cir.2002) (en banc) (“It seems clear to us that a federal habeas court is authorized by [§] 2254(d) to review only a state court’s ‘decision,’ and not the written opinion explaining that decision.”), cer t. denied, 537 U.S. 1104 , 123 S.Ct. 963 , 154 L.Ed.2d 772 (2003).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Ronald Rompilla v. Martin Horn, Commissioner, Pennsylvania Department of Corrections Martin Horn, Appellant/cross-Appellee
(2×)
See also Neal v. Puckett, 286 F.3d 230, 235 (5th Cir.2002) (“adjudication ‘on the merits’ is a term of art that refers to whether a court’s disposition of the case was substantive as opposed to procedural”), cert. denied, 537 U.S. 1104 , 123 S.Ct. 963 , 154 L.Ed.2d 772 (2003).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Rompilla v. Horn
See also Neal v. Puckett, 286 F.3d 230 , 235 (5th Cir. 2001) (“adjudication ‘on the merits’ is a term of art that refers to whether a court’s disposition of the case was substantive as opposed to procedural”), cert. denied, 123 S. Ct. 963 (2003).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
In Re Gallamore
02-8451 (02A566).
Supreme Court of the United States.
Jan 14, 2003.
Published
Application for stay of execution of sentence of death, presented to Justice Scalia, and by him referred to the Court, denied. Petition for writ of habeas corpus denied.