Aldus v. State’s Empirical Analysis
2000
Citation profile
13 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 13 later decisions — most recently January 2024
13 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 8 U.S.C. § 1228 (§ 238 of the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952 (McCarran-Walter))
Relies on Strickland v. Washington · Hill v. Lockhart · Lehmann v. United States Ex Rel. Carson · United States v. Campbell · Fruchtman v. Kenton
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 13 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[F]irst, whether there has been serious incompetency, inefficiency, or inattention of counsel amounting to performance ... below what might be expected from an ordinary fallible attorney; and second, whether any such ineffective representation likely deprived the defendant of an otherwise available substantial ground of defense.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“Whether the performance of an attorney falls below the standard is a question of fact. “We will not overturn a post-conviction court’s determination as to the effectiveness of trial counsel unless it is clearly erroneous and there is no competent evidence in the record to support it.” Likewise, the finding of whether the petitioner was prejudiced by her attorney’s error is a factual finding reviewed for clear error.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. McGowan v. State“foreseen because of the automatic operation of statutes”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. State v. Trotter
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.