Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 2004 ND 75 - State v. Causer

State v. Causer’s Empirical Analysis

2004

Citation profile

26
cited by 26 later decisions
1
cited 1 times by the Supreme Court
1
states following
May 2023
most recently cited

25 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 26 later decisions (1 by the Supreme Court) — most recently May 2023 · most notably May v. Sprynczynatyk (2005), State v. Wardner (2006)

25 state decisions

160200420102020decided

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 State v. Bender · Fenske v. Fenske · State v. Ballweg · McKechnie v. Berg · State v. Vondal

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

  1. “To establish an ineffective assistance of counsel claim, the defendant must show the representation fell below an objective standard of reasonableness and there is a reasonable probability, but for counsel’s unprofessional errors, the result of the proceeding would have been different. Generally, ineffective assistance of counsel claims should be raised in post-conviction proceedings, during which an evidentiary record can be made. However, we examine the entire record when an ineffective assistance of counsel claim is raised on direct appeal. A conviction will not be reversed unless the récord reveals the assistance of counsel was plainly defective and requires such reversal. Unless the record affirmatively shows ineffectiveness of constitutional dimensions, the defendant must provide the court with some evidence in the record to support the claim. Some form of proof is required, and the representations and assertions of new counsel are not enough.... [W]ithout a record scrutinizing the reasons underlying counsel’s conduct, adjudging it subpar is virtually impossible.”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage
  2. “A touchstone for an effective appeal on any proper issue is that the matter was appropriately raised in the trial court, so the trial court could intelligently rule on it.... A party must object at the time the alleged error occurs, so the trial court may take appropriate action if possible to remedy any prejudice that may have resulted. Failure to object acts as a waiver of the claim of error.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage

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.