Williamson v. Ward’s Empirical Analysis
110 F.3d 1508 · 1997
Citation profile
69 federal appellate · 11 district · 15 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 160 later decisions — most recently March 2023 · most notably Moore v. Gibson (1999), Nguyen v. Reynolds B (1997)
69 federal appellate · 11 district · 15 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
Applies 18 U.S.C. § 3005 · 21 U.S.C. § 848 (§ 408 of the Controlled Substances Act) · 28 U.S.C. § 2244 (Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996) · 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996)
Relies on Strickland v. Washington · Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc. · Townsend v. Sain · Kyles v. Whitley · Colorado v. Connelly
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 160 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“The right to counsel is a fundamental right of criminal defendants; it assures the fairness, and thus the legitimacy, of our adversarial process. The essence of an ineffective-assistance claim is that counsel’s unprofessional errors so upset the adversarial balance between defense and prosecution that the trial was rendered unfair and the verdict rendered suspect.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“'[A] determination after a hearing on the merits of a factual issue, made by a State court of competent jurisdiction ... shall be presumed correct' unless one of [ ] eight enumerated circumstances is established.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“committed serious errors in light of prevailing professional norms such that his legal representation fell below an objective standard of reasonableness.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage
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.