Hanes v. Dormire’s Empirical Analysis
240 F.3d 694 · 2001
Citation profile
2 federal appellate · 1 district ·
Relationships
Applies 28 U.S.C. § 2253 (Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996) · 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996) · 29 U.S.C. § 2106 (§ 7 of the Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification Act)
Relies on Strickland v. Washington · Brady v. State of Maryland · Slack v. McDaniel · Wainwright v. Sykes · Hickman v. Taylor
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 4 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“While some of the potential witnesses’ testimony could have been helpful in rebutting or clarifying some collateral evidence, we do not believe any of the proffered testimony was so important as to put counsel’s failure to consult with or call these witnesses outside the wide bounds of *860 strategic choices that counsel is afforded.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Forrest v. Steele“‘Decisions relating to witness selection are normally left to counsel’s judgment, and this judgment will not be second-guessed by hindsight.’”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Forrest v. Steele
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.