Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 261 F.2d 351 - Lunce v. Dowd

Lunce v. Dowd’s Empirical Analysis

261 F.2d 351 · 1958

Citation profile

12
cited by 12 later decisions
2
states following
December 1983
most recently cited

9 federal appellate · 1 district · 2 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 12 later decisions — most recently December 1983

9 federal appellate · 1 district · 2 state decisions

701958196019701980decided

Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.

Relationships

Relies on Brown v. Allen · Lyles & Lang Construction Co. v. E. I. du Pont de Nemours & Co. · Wilson v. State · United States ex rel. Feeley v. Ragen · Lunce v. Overlade

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

  1. ““We are not unmindful of the strict test to be applied to unbridled claims of incompetence brought by prisoners against their trial counsel after incarceration for .crimes has given time for bitter reflection. To allow complaints of mistake in judgment, error in trial strategy or misconception of the law to be labeled as “incompetence” would be to open the doors to every prisoner to charge his conviction to errors of counsel. ‘Petitions challenging the competency of counsel, especially years after the conviction, must clearly-allege such a factual situation which if' established by competent evidence would show the representation of counsel was such as ■ to reduce the trial to a farce or a sham. Obherwise, they should he dismissed.’ (Our emphasis.) United States ex rel. Feeley v. Ragen, 7 Cir., 1948, 166 F.2d 976, 981 .” And in Golpin v. United States, 6 Cir., 1958, 252 F.2d 685, 687 , it is stated: “A cognizable issue as to effective assistance of counsel is not tendered by mere general criticism of an attorney’s conduct of the defense. In order to present a colorable showing of lack of effective assistance of counsel, a defendant must descend to particulars and allege what the attorney did or failed to do that constituted malrepresentation. See: Taylor v. United States, 9 Cir., 1956, 238 F.2d 409 , 413 — 414; Adams v. United States, 1955, 95 U.S.App.D.C. 354 , 222 F.2d 45, 47 .””
    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.