State v. Otey’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

2 federal appellate · 26 state decisions

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

1. ““First, counsel must perform at least as well as one with ordinary criminal law skill and training in his or her region. Counsel must also conscientiously protect his client’s interests. State v. Leadinghorse, 192 Neb. 485 , 222 N.W.2d 573 (1974); State v. Lang, 202 Neb. 9 , 272 N.W.2d 775 (1978). A defendant challenging competency of counsel has the burden to establish it. State v. Auger & Uitts, 200 Neb. 53 , 262 N.W.2d 187 (1978). In addition, defendant must show that he suffered prejudice in the defense of his case as a result of his attorney’s actions or inactions. State v. Mays, 203 Neb. 487 , 279 N.W.2d 146 (1979); State v. Lang, supra; State v. Bartlett, 199 Neb. 471 , 259 N.W.2d 917 (1977).””

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. State v. Evans · State v. Harper

2. ““In State v. Holtan, [ 205 Neb. 314, 321 , 287 N.W.2d 671, 676 (1980), cert. denied 449 U.S. 891 , 101 S. Ct. 250 , 66 L. Ed. 2d 117 ], we said: ‘[T]he defendant maintains that counsel was inadequate in that he did not subpoena witnesses from the state of Washington who would have testified as to his good character. The record, however, fails to disclose what, if anything, the witnesses would have testified to had they been called.... In the absence of evidence to disclose what the witnesses would have testified to, we are unable to establish any prejudice and therefore unable to establish any error.’ Likewise, in State v. Kelly, [ 190 Neb. 41, 44 , 205 N.W.2d 646, 648 (1973)], where the defendant claimed that his attorney had failed to interview and obtain witnesses to establish a defense based on consent, we said . . . ‘The defendant utterly failed to establish this allegation. None of the four witnesses identified by him as supporting this defense were called to testify at this hearing nor was their failure to be called as witnesses explained----’ ””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. State v. Gagliano