Mello v. DiPaulo’s Empirical Analysis
295 F.3d 137 · 2002
Citation profile
12 federal appellate · 13 district · 1 state decisions
Relationships
Applies 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996)
Relies on Strickland v. Washington · Williams v. Taylor · Sims v. State of Georgia · Commonwealth v. Saferian · Commonwealth v. Wright
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 28 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“a probability[,] sufficient to undermine confidence in the outcome,”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Lewis v. Maine · Smiley v. Maloney“(1) that 'counsel's representa tion fell below an objective standard of reasonableness' and (2) 'a reasonable probability that, but for counsel's unprofessional errors, the result of the proceeding would have been different.'”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“[T]he SJC rejected [the petitioner’s] ineffective assistance of counsel claims under a “substantial likelihood of a miscarriage of justice” standard that the SJC says is more favorable to a defendant than the Saferian standard, which we have said is the functional equivalent of the Strickland standard. We therefore conclude that the SJC applied a standard of ineffective assistance of counsel that is at least as favorable to [the petitioner] as the federal standard.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Knight v. Spencer
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.