Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 293 F.3d 19 - Ouber v. Guarino

Ouber v. Guarino’s Empirical Analysis

293 F.3d 19 · 2002

Citation profile

168
cited by 168 later decisions
12
states following
October 2024
most recently cited

76 federal appellate · 34 district · 24 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 168 later decisions — most recently October 2024 · most notably United States v. Moran (2004), United States Hampton v. Leibach (2003)

76 federal appellate · 34 district · 24 state decisions — followed in 12 states

1110200220102020decided

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

Applies 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996)

Relies on Strickland v. Washington · Williams v. Taylor · Townsend v. Sain · Powell v. State of Alabama Patterson · United States v. Cronic

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

  1. ““When a jury is promised that it will hear the defendant’s story from the defendant’s own lips, and the defendant then reneges, common sense suggests that the course of trial may be profoundly altered. A broken promise of this magnitude taints both the lawyer who vouchsafed it and the client on whose behalf it was made.” Ouber v. Guarino, 293 F.3d 19, 28 (1st Cir. 2002).”
    4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “[T]he special prophylaxis of section 2254(d)(2) applies only to determinations of basic, primary, or historical facts.”
    4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “a reviewing court must not lean too heavily on hindsight: a lawyer's acts and omissions must be judged on the basis of what he knew, or should have known, at the time his tactical choices were made and implemented.” Ouber v. Guarino, 293 F.3d 19, 25 (1st Cir.2002); see United States v. Rodriguez, 675 F.3d 48, 56 (1st Cir.2012) (”
    3 later decisions 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.