Betts v. Litscher’s Empirical Analysis
241 F.3d 594 · 2001
Citation profile
7 federal appellate · 7 state decisions
Relationships
Applies 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996)
Relies on Anders v. California · Johnson v. Zerbst · Williams v. Taylor · Penson v. Ohio · Roe, Warden v. Flores-Ortega
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 17 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[0]ne principal reason why defendants are entitled to counsel on direct appeal is so that they will not make the kind of procedural errors that unrepresented defendants tend to commit.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“suffered injury from that very fact — from the loss of advocacy services that could have been used to establish a non-frivolous issue for appeal.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“There is scant evidence of waiver .... [T]he state court did not hold a hearing or use any other procedure to ascertain the truth.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
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.