Soraich v. State’s Empirical Analysis
2002
Citation profile
27 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 27 later decisions — most recently April 2025 · most notably Heath v. State (2009), State v. Turnsplenty (2003)
27 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 · Iaea v. Sunn · State v. White · Hagen v. State · State v. Hanson
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 27 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“Though not easily distilled into a formula, the definitive question that distinguishes and decides which actions are record and which are non-record, is why? In other words, if counsel fails to object to the admission of evidence, or fails to offer an opening statement, does the record fully explain why counsel took the particular course of action? If not, then the matter is best-suited for post-conviction proceedings which permit a further inquiry into whether the particular representation was ineffective. Only when the record will fully explain why counsel took, or failed to take, action in providing a defense for the accused may this Court review the matter on direct appeal.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. State v. Becker · State v. Adgerson“before indulging the strong presumption demanded by Strickland that a tactical or strategic act falls within the wide range of reasonable and sound professional assistance. When a challenged act or omission reflects an unreasonable defense strategy, stems from neglect or ignorance, or results from a misunderstanding of the law, counsel's deficient performance meets the first prong of the Strickland test. Harris, ¶ 22 (citations omitted). ¶22 At the time of the omission complained of by Montoya, the parties were arguing two issues before the District Court: (1), whether Montoya was a”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. State v. Montoya“[W]e do not know whether the alleged errors in this case reflect a coherent trial strategy or whether they were reasonable and deserve deference and we refuse to speculate.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. State v. Sawyer
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.