Weeks v. Jones’s Empirical Analysis
100 F.3d 124 · 1996
Citation profile
6 federal appellate · 4 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 20 later decisions — most recently August 2022
6 federal appellate · 4 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
Relies on Neitzke v. Williams · Ford v. Wainwright · Coppedge v. United States · Kachina Plywood, Inc. v. Hurt · Gilliam v. United States
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 20 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“each attorney so appointed shall represent the defendant throughout every subsequent stage of available judicial proceedings, including pretrial proceedings, trial, sentencing, motions for new trial, appeals, applications for writ of certiorari to the Supreme Court of the United States, and all available post-conviction process, together with applications for stays of execution and other appropriate motions and procedures, and shall also represent the defendant in such competency proceedings and proceedings for executive or other clemency as may be available to the defendant.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“On its face, § 848(q)(4)(B) does not condition the appointment of counsel on the substantiality or non-frivolousness of petitioner's habeas claim.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the concurrence“a substantive, merits assessment of the petition is irrelevant to the appointment of counsel.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the concurrence
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.