McHale v. United States’s Empirical Analysis
175 F.3d 115 · 1999
Citation profile
21 federal appellate · 1 district · 2 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 39 later decisions — most recently May 2016 · most notably Commonwealth v. Halley (2005), Soto v. United States (1999)
21 federal appellate · 1 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
Applies 18 U.S.C. § 3006A (Criminal Justice Act) · 21 U.S.C. § 846 (§ 406 of the Controlled Substances Act) · 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996)
Relies on Strickland v. Washington · Penson v. Ohio · Houston v. Lack · Pavelic v. Marvel Entertainment Group · Lozada v. Deeds
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 39 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“need not demonstrate that, but for the ineffectiveness of counsel, such an appeal would have succeeded or even would have had merit”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“... [W]e have considered motions to recall a mandate and reinstate a dismissed appeal without regard to fixed time limits. See Sargent, 75 F.3d at 89; 2 Calloway, 854 F.2d at 1475. 3 ... Though we would be unlikely to reinstate an appeal long after it had been dismissed for default, except in the most unusual circumstances, we conclude that it is appropriate to place McHale’s appeal back on the appellate track in view of his attempt to complain of the denial of effective assistance of appellate counsel via a section 2255 mo tion filed within the applicable time limit for such a motion. However, for the reasons stated, we deem it appropriate to accomplish the reinstatement expeditiously by recalling the mandate and reinstating the appeal, rather than by reversing the denial of the section 2255 motion.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the dissent
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.