O'Rourke v. Endell’s Empirical Analysis
153 F.3d 560 · 1998
Citation profile
7 federal appellate · 2 district · 2 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 28 later decisions — most recently August 2024 · most notably Francis S. v. Stone (2000), Victor Wayne Hooks v. Ron Ward (1999)
7 federal appellate · 2 district · 2 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 Strickland v. Washington · Coleman v. Thompson · Murray v. Carrier · United States v. Frady · McCleskey v. Zant
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 28 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[t]he purpose of the 'knowing and voluntary' inquiry . . . is to determine whether the defendant actually does understand the significance and consequences of a particular decision and whether the decision is uncoerced.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“[t]he court never explained to [petitioner] the significance of his decision to waive his postconviction appeal. No one questioned him as to his understanding of the possible results of a successful appeal, which might have included not only a lesser sentence but a new trial with a potentially different outcome.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“[A] factual determination made by the state court, after a hearing, that is ‘evidenced by a reliable and adequate written indicia’ generally is entitled to a presumption of correctness by the federal habeas court. ... A state court’s conclusion regarding a defendant’s competency is entitled to such a presumption. The presumption does not attach to the finding, however, if ‘the material facts were not adequately developed at the State court hearing,’ or if ‘the applicant did not receive a full, fair, and adequate hearing in the State court proceeding,’ or if ‘the applicant was otherwise denied due process of law in the State court proceeding.’ ””
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.