Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 2008 WY 114 - Proffit v. State

Proffit v. State’s Empirical Analysis

2008

Citation profile

27
cited by 27 later decisions
1
states following
February 2025
most recently cited

26 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 27 later decisions — most recently February 2025 · most notably Schreibvogel v. State (2010), Dixon v. State (2019)

26 state decisions

180200820102020decided

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 · State v. Singh · State v. Tosh · State v. Manning · Bolles v. People

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.

  1. “We are reluctant to reverse based upon allegations of ineffective assistance of counsel, and have stated that '[iJn the usual case, ineffective assistance of counsel is going to be demonstrable because of a cumulation of errors with a determination that, in the entire context of the trial, the defendant either was, or was not, denied a right to a fair trial'”
    3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “1) the severity and pervasiveness of the misconduct; 2) the significance of the misconduct to the central issues in the case; 3) the strength of the State's evidence; 4) the use of cautionary instructions or other curative measures; and 5) the extent to which the defense invited the misconduct.”
    3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “First, the defendant must show that counsel's performance was deficient. This requires showing that counsel made errors so serious that counsel was not functioning as the "counsel" guaranteed the defendant by the Sixth Amendment. Second, the defendant must show that the deficient performance prejudiced the defense. This requires showing that counsel's errors were so serious as to deprive the defendant of a fair trial, a trial whose result is reliable.”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority

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.