Tomlin v. Myers’s Empirical Analysis
30 F.3d 1235 · 1994
Citation profile
27 federal appellate · 1 district · 4 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 42 later decisions — most recently December 2015 · most notably Ortiz v. Stewart (1998), Snow v. Sirmons (2007)
27 federal appellate · 1 district · 4 state decisions
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 · United States v. Wade · Simmons v. United States · Neil v. Biggers · Gilbert v. California
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 42 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“To reject this finding, we must conclude that it lacks even fair support in the record.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“Application of this test in the present context requires consideration of various factors; for example, the prior opportunity to observe the alleged criminal act, the existence of any discrepancy between any pre-lineup description and the defendant’s actual description, any identification prior to lineup of another person, the identification by picture of the defendant prior to lineup, failure to identify the defendant on a prior occasion, and the lapse of time between the alleged act and the lineup identification. It is also relevant to consider those facts which, despite the absence of counsel, are disclosed concerning the conduct of the lineup.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Metcalf v. Newland“To show ineffective assistance of counsel, [the defendant] must show that counsel made.errors so serious that [she] was not functioning as the “counsel” guaranteed the defendant by the Sixth Amendment, and that the deficient performance prejudiced the defense. There is a strong presumption that counsel’s performance f[ell] within the wide range of professional assistance.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Aguilar v. Alexander
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.