Rawlins v. Craven’s Empirical Analysis
1971
Citation profile
2 federal appellate ·
Relationships
Applies 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996) · 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996)
Relies on Anders v. California · Chapman v. State of California · Townsend v. Sain · Harrington v. California · Burrus
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 6 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““ * * * Due process does not require ‘errorless counsel, and not counsel judged ineffective by hindsight, but counsel reasonably likely to render and rendering reasonably effective assistance.’ * * * ” Brubaker v. Dickson, 310 F.2d 30, 37 (9th Cir. 1962).”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“Since we have shown that Petitioner was not entitled to an assault instruction at his trial, it must be concluded that counsel on appeal was not ineffective for not raising this obviously untenable point.”
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.