Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 299 F.3d 796 - Rios v. Rocha

Rios v. Rocha’s Empirical Analysis

299 F.3d 796 · 2002

Citation profile

84
cited by 84 later decisions
2
states following
June 2024
most recently cited

37 federal appellate · 2 district · 4 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 84 later decisions — most recently June 2024 · most notably Alvarez v. IBP, Inc. (2003), Alcala v. Woodford (2003)

37 federal appellate · 2 district · 4 state decisions

640200220102020decided

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 · Lindh v. Murphy · O'NEAL v. McAninch · Jeffries v. Wood · Sanders v. Ratelle

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

  1. “[I]neffective assistance claims based on a duty to investigate must be considered in light of the strength of the government's case.”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “it would have been unreasonable for him to rely solely on the investigation performed for a co-defendant, because the co-defendant's interests in the case might well conflict with [the defendant's].”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “[D]efense counsel must, `at a minimum, conduct a reasonable investigation enabling him to make informed decisions about how best to represent his client.'”
    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.