236 F. Supp. 2d 412 - Douglas v. Hendricks’s Empirical Analysis
2002
Citation profile
2 federal appellate · 3 state decisions
Relationships
Applies 18 U.S.C. § 3006A (Criminal Justice Act) · 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996) · 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (Civil Rights Act of 1871 / Section 1983 (Ku Klux Klan Act))
Relies on Strickland v. Washington · Jackson v. Virginia · Chapman v. State of California · Wong Sun v. United States · Katz 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 6 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“Once a defendant puts the court on notice of his inability to retain private counsel, the district court must, `make further inquiry into the defendant's financial condition to ascertain whether he is entitled to have counsel appointed to represent him.'”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. People v. Alengi“constrained to deny Petitioner relief on this ground because the Appellate Division's decision did not involve an unreasonable application of clearly established federal law . . . .”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Douglas v. Cathel“will not consider how it would have applied the Barker test because habeas relief is only available where the state court's application is `objectively unreasonable.'”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Douglas v. Cathel
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.