Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 2009 SD 4 - Steichen v. Weber

Steichen v. Weber’s Empirical Analysis

2009

Citation profile

30
cited by 30 later decisions
1
states following
October 2023
most recently cited

28 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 30 later decisions — most recently October 2023 · most notably State v. Brim (2010), State v. Thomas (2011)

28 state decisions

220200920102020decided

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 · Estelle v. McGuire · McMann v. Richardson · Cupp v. Naughten · Huddleston v. United States

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

  1. “strong presumption that counsel's performance falls within the wide range of professional assistance,”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage
  2. “Habeas corpus can be used only to review (1) whether the court has jurisdiction of the crime and the person of the defendant; (2) whether the sentence was authorized by law; and (3) in certain cases whether an incarcerated defendant has been deprived of basic constitutional rights. Habeas corpus is not a remedy to correct irregular procedures, rather, habeas corpus reaches only jurisdictional error. For purposes of habeas corpus, constitutional violations in a criminal case deprive the trial court of jurisdiction. Further, we may not upset the habeas court’s findings unless they are clearly erroneous.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  3. “[T]he defendant must show that there is a reasonable probability that, but for counsel's unprofessional errors, the result of the proceeding would have been different. A reasonable probability is a probability sufficient to undermine confidence in the outcome.”
    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.