Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 100 F.3d 750 - Davis v. Executive Director of Department of Corrections

Davis v. Executive Director of Department of Corrections’s Empirical Analysis

100 F.3d 750 · 1996

Citation profile

117
cited by 117 later decisions
3
states following
April 2019
most recently cited

64 federal appellate · 4 district · 3 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 117 later decisions — most recently April 2019 · most notably Coe v. Bell (1998), Moore v. Gibson (1999)

64 federal appellate · 4 district · 3 state decisions

690199620002010decided

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 Strickland v. Washington · Jackson v. Virginia · Kotteakos v. United States · Brecht v. Abrahamson · United States v. Cronic

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 117 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. “A defense attorney who abandons his duty of loyalty to his client and effectively joins the state in an effort to attain a conviction or death sentence suffers from an obvious conflict of interest, and thereby fails to provide effective assistance. Usually, when a defendant claims ineffective assistance of counsel because his attorney’s performance was inadequate, he must show both constitutionally deficient performance and that he was prejudiced by his attorney’s errors. In the event of an actual conflict of interest occasioned by abandonment, [however,] prejudice is presumed.”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “reasonable probability that, absent the errors, the sentencer . . . would have concluded that the balance of aggravating and mitigating circumstances did not warrant death.”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “We review de novo the district court's legal conclusions in dismissing a petition for a writ of habeas corpus.”
    2 later decisions 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.