Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 211 N.C. App. 309 - State v. Womack

211 N.C. App. 309 - State v. Womack’s Empirical Analysis

2011

Citation profile

1
cited by 1 later decisions
1
states following
March 2013
most recently cited

1 state decisions

Relationships

Relies on Strickland v. Washington · Arizona v. Hicks · Alaska v. Babbitt · CMC Heartland Partners v. Union Pacific Railroad · Alaska v. Babbitt

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

  1. “In analyzing ineffective assistance of counsel claims, we utilize a two-part test, under which the “[defendant must show (1) that ‘counsel’s performance was deficient,’ meaning it ‘fell below an objective standard of reasonableness,’ and (2) that ‘the deficient performance prejudiced the defense,’ meaning that ‘counsel’s errors were so serious as to deprive the defendant of a fair trial, a trial whose result is reliable.’ ”... In proving whether counsel’s actions resulted in prejudice to the defendant, he or she must demonstrate that “there is a reasonable probability that, but for counsel’s unprofessional errors, the result of the proceeding would have been different[,]” with a “reasonable probability” being “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.