Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 117 Wash. 2d 829 - State v. Lord

117 Wash. 2d 829 - State v. Lord’s Empirical Analysis

1992

Citation profile

359
cited by 359 later decisions
17
states following
July 2023
most recently cited

7 federal appellate · 350 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 359 later decisions — most recently July 2023 · most notably 127 Wash. 2d 322 - State v. McFarland (1995), State v. Hendrickson (1996)

7 federal appellate · 350 state decisions — followed in 17 states

17801992200020102020decided

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 · Brady v. State of Maryland · In the Matter of Samuel Winship · Gregg v. Georgia · Furman v. Georgia

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

  1. “(1) defense counsel's representation was deficient, i.e., it fell below an objective standard of reasonableness based on consideration of all the circumstances; and (2) defense counsel's deficient representation prejudiced the defendant, i.e., there is a reasonable probability that, except for counsel's unprofessional errors, the result of the proceeding would have been different.”
    8 later decisions quote this exact passage
  2. “Whether there was sufficient evidence to justify the affirmative finding to the question: Having in mind the crime of which Sagastegui has been found guilty, are you convinced beyond a reasonable doubt that there are not sufficient mitigating circumstances to merit leniency?”
    6 later decisions quote this exact passage
  3. “the brutal and extreme [crimes] with which we deal in death penalty cases, are unique and cannot be matched up like so many points on a graph.”
    6 later decisions 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.