Dunn v. Reeves
Decided July 2, 2021. The Court ruled per curiam, an unsigned opinion of the Court.
Docket 20-1084 · 594 U.S. 731 (2021) · Cited 100 times
Holding
In this federal habeas case, the Eleventh Circuit erred in characterizing the Alabama court’s case-specific analysis as a “categorical rule” that any prisoner will always lose an ineffective-assistance-of-trial-counsel claim if he fails to call and question trial counsel concerning his or her actions and reasoning; the Alabama court did not violate clearly established federal law when it rejected Reeves’ ineffective-assistance-of-trial-counsel claim.
The Court’s statement of the holding, from the opinion’s syllabus. The syllabus is prepared by the Reporter of Decisions and is not part of the opinion of the Court. Read the official opinion for authority.
Precedents cited
Supreme Court decisions this opinion relies on, ordered by how often it cites each. Cases in our collection link through; others are named.
- Harrington v. Richter · 562 U.S. 86 (2011)
- Cullen v. Pinholster · 563 U.S. 170 (2011)
- Woodford v. Visciotti · 537 U.S. 19 (2002)
- Strickland v. Washington · 466 U.S. 668 (1984)
- Wiggins v. Smith, Warden · 539 U.S. 510 (2003)
- Burt v. Titlow · 571 U.S. 12 (2013)
- Porter v. McCollum · 558 U.S. 30 (2009)
- Williams v. Taylor · 529 U.S. 362 (2000)
- Atkins v. Virginia · 536 U.S. 304 (2002)
- Johnson v. Williams · 568 U.S. 289 (2013)
- Hinton v. Alabama · 571 U.S. 263 (2014)
Official text
Read the official opinion (PDF, supremecourt.gov)
Explore from here
All Supreme Court opinions · The Supreme Court
Source: Supreme Court of the United States, slip opinions (2021). Citation count from the Free Law Project’s CourtListener bulk data. Data last verified 2026-08-15. Informational only; verify against the primary source before relying. Not a consumer report (FCRA).