Rhines v. Weber’s Empirical Analysis
2000
Citation profile
1 federal appellate · 1 district · 16 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 19 later decisions (1 by the Supreme Court) — most recently May 2022
1 federal appellate · 1 district · 16 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 · Lockhart v. Fretwell · Kimmelman v. Morrison · Zant v. Stephens · Clemons v. Mississippi
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 19 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“The benchmark for judging any claim of ineffectiveness must be whether counsel's conduct so undermined the proper functioning of the adversarial process that the trial cannot be relied upon as having produced a just result.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Miller v. Young · Hays v. Weber“Will Mr. Rhines be allowed to mix with the general inmate population? Will Mr. Rhines be allowed to discuss, describe or brag about his crime to other inmates, especially new and/or young men jailed for lesser crimes? (ex: drugs, DWI, assault, etc.) Will Mr. Rhines be allowed to marry or have conjugal visits? Will Mr. Rhines be allowed to have or attain any of the common joys of life (ex. TV, radio, music, telephone, or hobbies and other activities to distract him from his punishment)? Will Mr. Rhines be jailed alone or will he have a cell mate? What sort of free time will Mr. Rhines have (what would his daily routine be)?”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Moeller v. Weber“When a convicted defendant complains of the ineffectiveness of counsel’s assistance, the defendant must show that counsel’s representation fell below an objective standard of reasonableness. Judicial scrutiny of counsel’s performance must be highly deferential. Because of the difficulties inherent in making the evaluation, a court must indulge a strong presumption that counsel’s conduct falls within the wide range of reasonable professional assistance; that is, the defendant must overcome the presumption that, under the circumstances, the challenged action might be considered sound trial strategy.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Coon v. Weber
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.