Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 133 F.3d 621 - Fretwell v. Norris

Fretwell v. Norris’s Empirical Analysis

133 F.3d 621 · 1998

Citation profile

44
cited by 44 later decisions
4
states following
August 2018
most recently cited

28 federal appellate · 3 district · 6 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 44 later decisions — most recently August 2018 · most notably Joseph Szuchon v. Joseph Lehman Commissioner (2001), United States v. Rice (2006)

28 federal appellate · 3 district · 6 state decisions

240199820002010decided

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 · Lockhart v. Fretwell · Soberon v. United States · Needler v. Valley National Bank of Arizona · Burger v. Kemp

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

  1. “The reasonableness of counsel’s actions may be determined or substantially influenced by the defendant’s own statements or actions. Counsel’s actions are usually based, quite properly, on informed strategic choices made by the defendant and on information supplied by the defendant. In particular, what investigation decisions are reasonable depends critically on such information. For example, when the facts that support a certain potential line of defense are generally known to counsel because of what the defendant has said, the need for further investigation may be considerably diminished or eliminated altogether. [ 466 U.S. at 691 , 104 S.Ct. at 2066 , 80 L.Ed.2d at 695-96 .]”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “A fair assessment of attorney performance requires that every effort be made to eliminate the distorting effects of hindsight, to reconstruct the circumstances of counsel’s challenged conduct, and to evaluate the conduct from counsel’s perspective at the time. Because of the difficulties inherent in making the evaluation, a court must indulge a strong presumption that counsel’s conduct falls within the wide range of reasonable professional assistance; that is, the defendant must overcome the presumption that, under the circumstances, the challenged action “might be considered sound trial strategy.””
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “that there is a reasonable probability that, but for counsel's unprofessional errors, the result of the proceeding would have been different.”
    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.