248 F. Supp. 2d 988 - Lambert v. Blodgett’s Empirical Analysis
2003
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)
Relies on Strickland v. Washington · Slack v. McDaniel · Boykin v. Alabama · Williams v. Taylor · North Carolina v. Alford
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 3 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“(1) there was a single “boss,” Douglas Earl, who could terminate the contract with the attorneys at any time and not pay them. (2) The attorneys were paid out of Douglas Earl’s account. (3) There was a single investigator for the group of attorneys. (4) Douglas Earl handled client complaints made against THE DEFENDERS. (5) Tom Earl, one of the senior attorneys, supervised the other attorneys and reported concerns to Douglas Earl, at one time recommending that Guillermo Romero be terminated for poor performance. (6) When Guillermo Romero was suspended from the practice of law, other attorneys in The Defenders received the cases that would otherwise have been assigned to Mr. Romero. (7) Office space was shared at one location with Thomas Earl and Guillermo Romero having offices across the hall from each other. Mr. Romero did not maintain any other legal office. (8) The sign outside the building said “Grant County Public Defenders.” (9) The office equipment was shared by the attorneys, including the copier, the fax machine, and the computer. (10) The secretarial services were shared by the attorneys. (11) The case files were prepared by the shared secretary and retained by Earl & Earl. (12) Business cards were prepared for the attorneys noting “The Defenders,” although Douglas Earl thought that they were not used. David Boerner’s expert opinion, [adopted by the district court], was that THE DEFENDERS was a firm for conflict analysis.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Lambert v. Blodgett“(d) An application for a writ of habeas corpus on behalf of a person in custody pursuant to the judgment of a State court shall not be granted with respect to any claim that was adjudicated on the merits in State court proceedings unless the adjudication of the claim— (2) resulted in a decision that was based on an unreasonable determination of the facts in light of the evidence presented in the State court proceeding. (e)(1) In a proceeding instituted by an application for a writ of habeas corpus by a person in custody pursuant to the judgment of a State court, a determination of a factual issue made by a State court shall be presumed to be correct. The applicant shall have the burden of rebutting the presumption of correctness by clear and convincing evidence.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the concurrencee.g. Lambert v. Blodgett“denied ... full discovery and an evidentiary hearing.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the concurrencee.g. Lambert v. Blodgett
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.