Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 262 F.3d 336 - Burdine v. Johnson

Burdine v. Johnson’s Empirical Analysis

262 F.3d 336 · 2001

Citation profile

116
cited by 116 later decisions
2
cited 2 times by the Supreme Court
11
states following
January 2025
most recently cited

52 federal appellate · 3 district · 20 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 116 later decisions (2 by the Supreme Court) — most recently January 2025 · most notably United States v. Griffin (2003), Moss v. Hofbauer (2002)

52 federal appellate · 3 district · 20 state decisions — followed in 11 states

720200120102020decided

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 Strickland v. Washington · Anders v. California · Slack v. McDaniel · United States v. Olano · Anderson v. Creighton

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

  1. “Unconscious counsel equates to no counsel at all. Unconscious counsel does not analyze, object, listen or in any way exercise judgment on behalf of a client. ... When we have no basis for assuming that counsel exercised judgment on behalf of his client during critical stages of trial, we have insufficient basis for trusting the fairness of that trial and consequently must presume prejudice.”
    3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the concurrence
  2. “[u]nconscious counsel equates to no counsel at all”
    3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the concurrence
  3. “[w]e have found constructive denial in cases involving the absence of counsel from the courtroom, conflicts of interest between defense counsel and the defendant, and official interference with the defense; and have stated that constructive denial will be found when counsel fails to subject the prosecution’s case to any meaningful adversarial testing.”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the concurrence

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.