Tompsett v. Ohio’s Empirical Analysis
146 F.2d 95 · 1944
Citation profile
18 federal appellate · 1 district · 14 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 42 later decisions — most recently April 1997 · most notably Cooper v. Fitzharris (1978), State v. Deal (1969)
18 federal appellate · 1 district · 14 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
Relies on Johnson v. Zerbst · Adams v. United States Ex Rel. McCann · Lisenba v. People of State of California · Patton v. United States · Diaz v. United States
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 42 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“‘The incompetency or negligence of an attorney employed by a defendant does not ordinarily constitute grounds for a new trial and a fortiorari will not be grounds for the application of the Fourteenth Amendment. * * * ‘The concept of this rule is that the lack of skill and incompetency of the attorney is imputed to the defendant who employed him, the acts of the attorney thus becoming those of his client and so recognized and accepted by the court, unless the defendant repudiates them by making known to the court at the time his objection to or lack of concurrence in them. A defendant cannot seemingly acquiesce in his attorney’s defense of him or his lack of it and, after the trial has resulted adversely to defendant, obtain a new trial because of the incompetency, negligence, fraud or unskillfulness of his attorney.’ ””
6 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.