Holladay v. Haley’s Empirical Analysis
209 F.3d 1243 · 2000
Citation profile
43 federal appellate · 7 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 120 later decisions — most recently June 2022 · most notably Chandler v. United States (2000), Kenneth G. Pavel v. Melvin L. Hollins, Superintendent, Oneida Correctional Facility Eliot L. Spitzer, Attorney General of New York State (2001)
43 federal appellate · 7 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 · Coleman v. Thompson · Wainwright v. Sykes · Murray v. Carrier · United States v. Frady
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 120 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“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.”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage“[e]ven the prosecutor, in his closing, acknowledged that Holladay was slightly mentally retarded.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“phase of the trial of records of the defendant’s mental illness, did not procure an independent expert analysis of the defendant, and did not comment in closing argument upon the records or the defendant’s mother’s testimony regarding the manifestations of the defendant’s mental illness, was not within “the wide range of professionally competent assistance.””
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.