State v. Cambrice’s Empirical Analysis
2016
Citation profile
3 state decisions
Relationships
Applies 28 U.S.C. § 2244 (Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996)
Relies on Strickland v. Washington · Brady v. State of Maryland · Kyles v. Whitley · Grupo Mexicano Desarrollos v. Alliance Bond Fund Inc · Jones v. Barnes
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 3 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“of the Strickland test requires the petitioner to establish that the appellate court would have granted relief had the issue been raised. State v. Cambrice , 2015-2362 (La. 10/17/16), 202 So.3d 482 , 487, citing United States v. Phillips , 210 F.3d 345 (5th Cir. 2000). In reviewing claims of ineffective assistance of counsel on direct appeal, appellate counsel”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. State v. Davis“Evitts v. Lucey , 469 U.S. 387 , 394, 105 S.Ct. 830 , 83 L.Ed.2d 821 (1985). The Court gives great deference to professional appellate strategy and applauds counsel for”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. State v. Davis“winnowing out weaker arguments on appeal and focusing on one central issue if possible, and at most a few key issues.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. State v. Davis
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.