Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 160 F.3d 1269 - Hickman v. Spears

Hickman v. Spears’s Empirical Analysis

160 F.3d 1269 · 1998

Citation profile

64
cited by 64 later decisions
September 2019
most recently cited

15 federal appellate · 6 district ·

How this case has been cited

Cited by 64 later decisions — most recently September 2019 · most notably Victor Wayne Hooks v. Ron Ward (1999), Dion Smallwood v. Gary Gibson Attorney General of the State of Oklahoma - (1999)

15 federal appellate · 6 district ·

420199820002010decided

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 28 U.S.C. § 2253 (Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996) · 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996) · 28 U.S.C. § 636

Relies on Strickland v. Washington · Coleman v. Thompson · United States v. Cronic · Kimmelman v. Morrison · Evitts v. Lucey

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

  1. “(1) that his counsel's performance fell below an objective standard of reasonableness and (2) that the deficient performance was prejudicial to his defense.”
    4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “there is a reasonable probability that, but for counsel's unprofessional errors, the result of the proceeding would have been different.”
    4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “For the state ground to be adequate, it must be strictly or regularly followed and applied evenhandedly to all similar claims.”
    3 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.