Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 108 F.3d 554 - Hernandez v. Johnson

Hernandez v. Johnson’s Empirical Analysis

108 F.3d 554 · 1997

Citation profile

34
cited by 34 later decisions
2
states following
April 2016
most recently cited

10 federal appellate · 2 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 34 later decisions — most recently April 2016 · most notably United States v. Infante (2005), United States v. Fields (2007)

10 federal appellate · 2 state decisions

180199720002010decided

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 · Cuyler v. Sullivan · Burger v. Kemp · Nix v. Whiteside · Clampitt v. Interinsurance Exchange

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

  1. “(A) the claim relies on - (i) a new rule of constitutional law, made retroactive to cases on collateral review by the Supreme Court, that was previously unavailable; (ii) a factual predicate that could not have been previously discovered through the exercise of due diligence; and (B) the facts underlying the claim would be sufficient to establish by clear and convincing evidence that but for constitutional error, no reasonable fact-finder would have found the applicant guilty of the underlying offense.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “[Appellant's counsel]'s service as district attorney ended nine years before appellant's trial; he personally searched the records of the prior felonies before representing [appellant] to determine whether he was involved in those prosecutions and concluded there - 17 - was no hindrance. Under these circumstances, where [the counsel] was only tenuously and nominally connected to the prior cases against [appellant], it can hardly be said that he 'actively' represented conflicting interests.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “has limited Cuyler to actual conflicts resulting from a lawyer's representation of multiple criminal defendants,”
    1 later decision 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.