Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 325 F.3d 732 - Mitchell v. Mason

Mitchell v. Mason’s Empirical Analysis

325 F.3d 732 · 2003

Citation profile

65
cited by 65 later decisions
3
cited 3 times by the Supreme Court
5
states following
April 2024
most recently cited

22 federal appellate · 1 district · 5 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 65 later decisions (3 by the Supreme Court) — most recently April 2024 · most notably Keith v. Mitchell (2006), Ivory v. Jackson (2007)

22 federal appellate · 1 district · 5 state decisions

400200320102020decided

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 · Coleman v. Thompson · Teague v. Lane · Powell v. State of Alabama Patterson

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

  1. “The first is the complete denial of counsel, in which the accused is denied the presence of counsel at a critical stage. The second is when counsel entirely fails to subject the prosecution’s case to meaningful adversarial testing. The third is when counsel is placed in circumstances in which competent counsel very likely could not render assistance.”
    4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “(1) resulted in a decision that was contrary to, or involved an unreasonable application of, clearly established Federal law, as determined by the Supreme Court of the United states; or (2) resulted in a decision that was based on an unreasonable determination of the facts in light of the evidence presented in the State court proceeding.”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “circumstances . . . are so likely to prejudice the accused that the cost of litigating their effect in a particular case is unjustified.”
    2 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.